thoughts on Play by intent

Maybe I'm out of line, but if 'the vast majority' of players were playing it wrong, it was not clearly written.

I'm not sure how it is not legit after 30 pages and 600 posts.

I'm fairly new to the game, and have been told that when this thread started, people were distressed that the issue was coming up again. IMHO, a FAQ is for, well, questions that are brought up frequently.

 

Movement is by definition a measuring and not LoF based action, reaching the precise point needed is a matter of movement not LoF, hence declaring that you move to the exact point you want is the same as declaring you intent to move to the point were the sweet range of your weapon is and the enemy weapons is not.

And yes, move by intent gives a massive advantage only to the active player.

 

I am really not sure how

This is badly written, that does not change the fact that the vast majority of people played it wrong.

What FAQ can we write for that?

 

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one ignoring the other text in the rule book, a plethora of other rules have been called out by other posters (Targetless, anti-materiel, hidden deployment, guided, speculative fire, intuitive attack, etc.) and I've given a few examples of how this minority view is impractical, none of which you've responded to.

You keep asking for citations but don't provide any yourself and will misquote the text of the rule by leaving out words like "etc."

As far as I can tell there is no prohibition on checking a unit's sight at any time, there's only a prohibition on measuring distances prior to declarations. So I'm curious what you're basing your stance off of, just the fact that only two possible classifications of things were specifically mentioned in the rule? Even though at the time the book was released objectives existed and aren't classed as models or markers (they're scenery items which can be interacted with at range sometimes) yet a half dozen exceptions were carved out in the same publication. Isn't that indicative that your case is weak?

My argument is two pronged;

1) the rules specifically say that front arc and LoF are public. As a result you can look at any model on the board at any time, and even look from their vantage point at an empty place on the table. LoF assisting devices are even called out in the LoF section and no where does it forbid you from using them at any time.

2) the phrase etc. Has multiple uses in English, one of them is future use, one is to indicate that an enumeration isn't all inclusive. If you had wanted to write out the second meaning you could have written something like "LoF is an imaginary line connecting two or more models, markers and/or any future classifications yet to be enumerated" but they didn't. You could also write a list of then existing classifications that cannot have LoF drawn to/from them, but they didn't.

 

Hey, maybe CB could make some videos like 'proper order declaration and result' or 'movement'... and just proceed through these things in a way they intend to be played. This would certainly bring more people to the game, as every product related video is good in long run - but also might end THIS kind of discussions once and for all...

I for one wouuld die to see how a proper INTENT and declaration + resolve of an order looks like. I have my guess, I know how we play it here. Intent is not a free pass to catch best range and stuff - it is to describe what exactly we do like 'I move around the corner and up to this cover' or 'would anyone (that I know of) see this model if I move around this corner?' not premeasuring move distance - still, a video of CB being ADAMANT about this would be fckn nice.

 

So then you're admitting that checking what a unit can see isn't measuring then, so there's no prohibition against it?

 

Like I said, I'm new. To me it seems clear, but wasn't there in 2016 and I don't know how it was misinterpreted.

 

For my own sanity can someone tell me if the play by intent issue is as much of a talking point in the Spanish rules?

From what I understand N3 was written in English first and this was one of the biggest changes between editions. If there is not this level of discussion with the Spanish rules that implies there is some sore of clarity to those rules that is absent from the English ones.

 

No, the advantage is still there for the active player if you do not use intent, it just gates the advantage so that fewer players are capable of using the advantage.

Remember, none of those here on the forums who are for intent hand-wave impossible situations, that's a misrepresentation by people who don't like the intent argument. It's all very achievable without the help of your opponent. Just a lot harder and/or more time consuming for some players than for others.

 

Time to start using more models with targetless weapons, since they're the only models that can check line of fire to any point on the table now

 

Man this whole thread...

 

Whoa now, that's not a valid comparison at all. If anything, it illustrates exactly why we're having this problem.

Prior to N3, those rules functioned differently. In fact, there was no timing specified in the Skills themselves. I believe it was an early ITS PDF that finally communicated such things were rolled for prior to deployment. As I recall, this was subsequently changed around the time of N3's release (or possibly the ITS just before).

Anytime you change a rule so that it works the exact opposite of how it previously works, you're bound to have some confusion.

This is exacerbated by the fact that many people don't think it makes sense to deploy a model without full knowledge of its skills/weapons/equipment. This is even further exacerbated by the fact that rolling certain items (specifically bikes), essentially breaks the game. What kind of sense does it make to all of the sudden discover that your model perched on a narrow wall is equipped with a motorcycle?

On top of that, I still don't think we have a FAQ to explain what we should do in this situation, do we? What has it been, two or three years now, right?

Like I said earlier, we've learned to fill in the blanks when CB presents us with rules that don't make sense or function properly. CB needs to learn that FAQs are necessary when enough of their customers ask for them, not just the rare instance when they finally admit to themselves that the written rules don't clearly communicate what they were meant to.

 

Here's the problem with your interpretation. Everyone needs to focus on this quote, because it is clear that there is a great misconception about what is being debated. Your intended destination and intended outcome are not the same thing.

Both actions are in fact legal. You declare your intent. You pick a point and you try to move to it, and you are guaranteed to reach your intended location if you have the required MOV, but whether you picked a destination that achieves your intended outcome is not guaranteed by the rules. There is no limit on how much time you spend picking the point, to get the greatest advantage in range and LOF. There is no restriction on surveying every detail of the table to help identify the point you want to move to. The only restriction is on when measuring the distance is allowed (presumably with a gaming aid, discounting the existence of people who can measure with their eyes unless these people are required to play infinity with their eyes closed). Now players can't confirm range before measuring, but they can confirm the position of their models relative to other models and the terrain without measuring. So intent players just figure out together who can see what as the as the active player chooses his intended location, because the active player could work it out on his own without breaking any rules.

Asking both players to cooperate on something that can be confirmed by one player without measuring is not the same as asking them to cooperate on something that cannot be confirmed without measuring, in any language or interpretation.

 

Using a laser pointer is not premeasuring, there are no rules that call it into question or anything that prohibits the confirmation of what you can physically see by the naked eye using gaming aids.(Quite the opposite seeing as its actually marked on the miniatures as per the rules)

The rules prohibit measuring distance and only distance at a certain point, even PS has admitted that the active player can spend as much time as they liek adjusting where they want to go and making sure who he thinks can see that defined location.

Ergo the rules allow said active player to whip out his laser line when making that determination.

So again, back to help or dont and waste time

 

I think that Intent and all the 'ask your opponent' are there to avoid covfefe with your opponent. We both want to see a certain outcome. Let's say I don't want to get ARO'ed while moving. You want to ARO my mini. I can check all the LOF myself then declare, move and you ARO me with a model that I 'know' have no legal LOF - but you think it has, cause you were counting on that ARO while I moved my miniature not talking to you at all... Asking beforehand helps estabilish certain facts so that we both follow to the same conclusion thus avoiding unnecessary dick'ish'ness during the game. I think intent is not there for leverage - more so - it is there to for the opposite reasons. If I can;t avoid ARO's - ok, but I sure as hell want to get to know that before I declare. Also I never expect my opponents to literally 'help me' make a decission. Some questions are meant to stay unansewer. Also being a dick and asking all possible LOF of all miniatures that are not related to the order at hand - is just that - being a dick and is neither sportsmanship nor fun.

(some) People should really meet in the middle, make game fun and easy. It is not difficult to play a high end game, be professional and have fun.

(some) People really mix intent with outcome. 'I want to move so no one ARO this model, where must I move' is like totally shit out of space, just as 'I move here so no one sees me' - 'ARO brother' - 'WTF I told my intent'... it just does not work this way. Communication, asking legal questions, stating steps your miniatures undertake in a precise manner leaving all the 'I want' behind - this is (I hope so) the way to play Infinity.

 

Answering some questions here:

hidden deployment

The troop is considered not to be on the game table, the troop is on the game table so they can draw LoF, if you argue against that on the basis that the trooper is not on the game table instead of considering the trooper not to be on the game table, I am afraid even your definition does not allow the trooper to draw LoF or line of sight you keep referring to even if it does not exist, of course checking for LoF for an edge case of LoF will reveal to your opponent that something is there, so either play it safe or risk it, Hidden Deployment is not cancelled if the model cannot draw LoF and hence cannot draw ARO.

Intuitive attack

There must be a legal LoF already existing only prevented by Zero Visibility Zone.

Speculative fire

LoF is ignored

Targetless

without designating an enemy as a target, there must be a target designated, it does not need to be an enemy.

Indiscriminate

Can be used without a valid target nearby.

Line of fire

Target is defined and as per BS attack rules

You cannot draw LoF to a point on the table unless you have a weapon with the targetless trait that specifically allows to designate the enemy as a target.

I will add that while moving the model has 360 arc (important for declaring a BS attack as a second short skill and to allow players not needing to state also the arc facing of the model while moving) but at no point in the movement skills it is said the model can check for LoF while moving.

finally on ARO

The reactive model must check for LoF to get ARO, the declaration is not based on hypothetical LoF, LoF must be checked before the model can gain the right to ARO.

And order sequence

It is clear LoF is checked at the point of skill declaration that requires it or for ARO purposes

Bonus blue box

The player can ask if LoF exists before declaring the order, not during the order and I have to point out before the declaration of the order short skills such as moment are part of the order and are declared during the order, the LoF question is done before any short skill is declared.

And as always

In the rules there is no part involving line of sight and there is no provision of checking LoF during a moment skill, actually there is no provision on checking LoF outside the cases were it is said by the rules to be checked. "ectr" in LoF is used because except a model or a marker targets can be pieces of equipment, points on the battlefield if targetless trait can be used pieces of terrain when scenario allows it or the players agree and specific scenario rules, it is also left open if at the future we decide to add another rule allowing another exception to this.

Simply put as I said it many times before move by intent is not supported by the rules and there is no part in the rules to support it, if you want to make a case for it you need to make a strong argument supported by the rules and not a single abbreviated word on a rule sentence.

 

Yes, as the advantage exist its the same as the advantage those players that can estimate distances correctly have over those that cannot do so, that places it on player skill and not on the rules, it also makes pie slicing a thing that can fail and not a thing that can happen 100% of the time with 100% certainty.

It is not legal to check LoF as part of the move short skill, beyond that, checking the LoF of the end position (or any position of the intended move path and adjusting it is intended outcome, not intended destination, the only intent written on the rules.

 

that is not what you said yesterday

1)Active player declares he activates model A then he spends an order from the order reserve of models A combat group, he then declares the models first short skill move, he checks what areas of the table enemy models C,D,E can see abd he observes what he can see from the corner of the the wall from a "models eye" view and then declares the models intended path up to the edge of the wall it is behind of and back to its initial position, he then places a marker (could be a base or a silhouette marker) were he wants the exposure point of his movement to be, player A intents to only see model C attempting to cut the pie and isolate the ARO to his advantage and leaves the actual model to the place he intended it to be its final position.

Now quote a rule, one single rule that states a laser cant be used to determine this?

 

If your silhouette changes you use this rule

So don't place your booty model in narrow spaces? booty is an unpredictable skill intended to bring either something useful or something not useful at all for a really low cost, there is no gap in the rules, players simply do not like to take the unpredictability part of the rule that makes it cost less than it would actually cost, same goes to many rules.

I did not admit that the player can place the silhouette marker and fiddle checking LoF before finally deciding were to place the marker, I said the player should be able to look from the models eye view even though it is not supported by the rules before placing the silhouette marker to its final position.

 

But is it not legal to look at the table when declaring a move? Because that is all I am talking about here. Are you seriously saying players can't look at the table before or during a move?

If they can, then they can confirm LOF. Being permitted to view the table but not being permitted to confirm LOF is not just bizarre, but impossible to enforce.