thoughts on Play by intent

I think we can all agree the reasons behind the video been made are of no importance to the discussion.

 

Ok, sorry if I was misunderstood.

My post wasn't to suggest that pie-slicing is not a real-world tactic, it was to suggest that in the real or future world, units can't expect to ask their opponents where to position themselves with respect to return fire, which is what 'play by intent' usually amounts to.

The key feature that distinguishes 'play by intent' from a simple reading of the rules is that it's making an agreement to notionally position units instead of taking personal responsibility for actually positioning units.

In PBI, you both agree that a position has a certain quality, whether it really does or not.

We can all slice the pie to try to manage a unit's exposure to return fire, but we don't have to do it with 'play by intent'; we can and do manage it by eye, and live - or die in a hail of ARO's by the actual position of our models.

 

absolutely I think we can disregard the video (and therefore the BoW and TS videos)

 

Yeah, he gives pretty good value, it has to be said. I'm still not sure we can trust him, though.

 

The risk was an illusion to begin with. There is no mechanic to force an active model to take AROs from outside it's LOF and there is no mechanic forcing a player to move a model to a position where they would generate more AROs than they intended.

The source of the risk you imagine comes from A) Sloppily choosing a destination or B) Sloppily placing a model. No one is obliged to be sloppy at either step so there is no risk to the non-sloppy.

What makes a player sloppy? Haste, inexperience, not giving AF... Are these characteristics associated with sportsmanship? When someone is sloppily taking AROs from my guys that they haven't got a counter to and that could have avoided, I try to correct their sloppy behavior.

 

Maybe if the opposing commanders were in arms reach there would be more discussion in the real world. Lots of undisputed Infinity mechanics, including the orders system and smoke don't hold up in the real world. It's not an appropriate argument to make in this debate.

 

Sure there's a mechanism, playing by the rules as designed and written. If you fail in your estimation, then the consequences will not be what you think they are. If you choose your placement, and eyeball the location, and when measurements are made you have erred, then you'll take more AROs than you intended.

And, again, if you and your opponent decide to play by intent and to posit certain things, by all means, you can do that, but, again, have the honesty to admit that you are house ruling it, and not playing the game either as designed or as written.

 

Generally I think people are honest that intent is a shortcut and not strictly in the rules. However, it was not conceived it might strictly be against the rules.

While I've been convinced that your interpretation is likely going to be the official one, it's largely due to my respect of psychoticstorm and his likelihood of understanding the nuances of why things are written. Rather than a strong backing from the written rules.

I don't think it's a good interpretation but when there is official word we will adapt.

Personally I think it will just result in arguments more often. But eventually something will emerge to smooth that over and we will go on playing.

 

I'm not sure that you can claim that isn't the design or written intention of the rules as they still give no indication you are not allowed to look at the placement of your marker/model prior to moving it into position. Using lasers/eyeballs to ensure no extra AROs are granted in not prohibited in the rules as far as anyone has shown meaning a player has the tools to ensure the outcome they intend.

I can agree that we have a house rule going on where you ask you opponent for verification as far as play by intent goes. I am also sure that it will rarely if ever change the outcome of a game given players above newbie level skills are involved. Intent play speeds up the game by mutually agreeing on easily done movements in the game and avoids arguments. I don't want to add an extra dice off in edge close cases in a game that already uses dice to determine outcomes. There is no clever position or strategy in players forcing a judge or dice off to determine if there is LoF or not.

Combine that with the majority of players not reading the rules that way makes the case of sticking to your guns and demanding strict RAW in a situation that really does not suit it will only breed bad blood in the community and around the game table. I agree that the view point against intent play has been demonstrated much better as this thread has gone on but it still hasn't convinced me that I cannot look at the table or use a laser if I so choose before/during an order.

As I mentioned before, if we take these LoF and ARO rules to the extreme RAW conclusion Hidden Deployment troopers are not able to make AROs in most cases. I'll be happy if that means I don't have to worry about missile Noctifires picking off my link team anymore. I don't think that is the case either but rules written seem to show that as true.

 

What was estimated? Do the rules you are referring say players have to estimate their intended position?

No one is estimating where they are declaring their moves to and it is not feasible to expect players to estimate what models will have LOF to a destination when they cannot be stopped from observing it, making the estimation pointless.

 

OK.

Is there any limit on how long I am allowed to look?
Can I move terrain to facilitate my looking without "instruments"?
If I use corrective lenses or contacts can I use those to determine potential line of fire? Do I need an note from an optometrist?
Can I use a mirror to get a models eye view?
Can I use terrain pieces as reference points to determine potential line of fire?
Many mats or boards have decorative textures or lines. Can I use those when determining potential line of fire?
Can I shine a flashlight to create more light around models and a sharper, clearer view of them when determining potential line of fire? What if the gaming store is poorly lit? What defines poorly lit?
Can I use my hand, held close to my face to provide a reference point for determining potential line of fire?
Can I string an eyelash between my upper and lower lid to provide a sharp line so I can determine potential line of fire?

 

So much this!

And how do you make your estimation? By looking at the board carefully.
How do you confirm your estimation? By looking at the board carefully.... but you already did that so you must have already confirmed... but that would be premeasuring and in violation of the rules....
So one of two things must be true
1) You are not allowed to look at the table.
2) There must be an alternative method to confirm estimations

How do the rules say you confirm estimations for LoF?
You reach an agreement with your opponent...
You have already made your half of the confirmation, so if your opponent says anything other then "I agree" you will need a judge to settle the dispute....EVERY TIME!!!

 

No it really is the same thing, our eyes are used to observe photons and these imaginary LoF lines are made of photons. Sure you could be admiring the table or the paint job on the models but lets be real every look at that table is telling you about the spatial relationships between the scenery and models present, any assertion otherwise is a bold faced lie.

So two things here, small group? the poll says otherwise. The only small group here is the one advocating your position. Second, if it were a run of the mill big tournament I'd agree with you but when the Tournament Organizers are the CB staff themselves, you know, the people who wrote the rule book, and have the actual authority to change it and make clarifications with it, yeah i'd say how they allow their tournaments to be played has some weight.

So your issue is precision of looking at the table, not that LoF can be checked at any time by less precise means?

Really as far as i can tell your argument is a deeply textual one so i did a search for all instances of LoF in the PDF and guess what i found? Well on page 37 when discussing if an impact template can hit a model the rule book draws LoF from the blast focus to the model in question. That should shatter the narrow view of models and markers only right? Furthermore, none of the skills requiring LoF specify when LoF should be checked. In fact the wording is "the user must have LoF" which to me sounds like LoF was something that the model had prior to the skill, something that could only be verified by checking.. hmmm

There is not a single instance in the entire rule book stating when LoF is to be checked just that it is required to do certain skills and not for others; how to draw it and what constitutes valid LoF, but never when its drawn. So really then, how do you justify your position that RAW LoF can only be drawn at skill declaration, because its certainly not written in the rules?

 

Welp, considering your misapprehension of the rules... don't believe everything you think, eh?

 

Also, @Stiopa , @psychoticstorm , etc, you all need to address that the rules specifically say that LoF exists between more than just models/markers and others of the same.

In particular, @Stiopa has been quoting a later passage from the same page without quoting this one, which leaves one with the impression that he's attempting to misrepresent the rules to force his viewpoint on the community.

@psychoticstorm has been repeating the idea that LoF only exists between models/markers as part of his justification as well. Y'all need to walk that back.

 

For me the problem with "intent" is going too far with how it works. In some cases intent takes the risk from the active player, and also takes away the need to think.
If I see a two AROing guys covering a firelane I'm not bending and intending with my HMG guy to see only one of them being almost in front of them.
I think. I try to go against them from different angle, to use some other weapons, some other unit, maybe infiltrator, paratrooper et cetera.

If the player playing against me want to make some intent, I usually let him after some talking, just say that I don't like it.

I took a part in an intent discussion in old forum, I even made a drawing to show some real mathematical arguments, but it was on Photobucket and can not be seen now (unless you want to find it that way - google search).
It showed, that a player would need to be able to position his model with a 0,69mm accuracy to shoot only one of two AROing guys standing 2 inches of each other, with a 30inches distance between the enemies.

And that's not the controversial case - it looks "simple".
In one of my games my opponent wanted to intent his move so he can fire against only one of my two guys, who were standing on a building - one on a first floor, one on a roof, one above the other, and they were shifted about maybe 2mm? The thickness of HDF wall... I agreed after some discussion to simply not lenghten the game and I was awarded with a better ARO than 5 shots from a linked HMG.

And about slicing the pie - yes, it can be done, like here:

But suddenly in Infinity the Game everybody wants to do this while staying in cover. Aren't they?
And that's not how slicing the pie works.

For the final words - we agree that in Infinity you don't premeasure.
So it's definitely possible to try to reach a cover with a move to a wall, but fail. Let's say having 4,2inch distance and moving 4. That happens and everybody should agree that it's possible and it's a part of the game.
So how is it possible, in a game where you can't premeasure and can make a distance failure with a half of inch or something, that your unit can position himself with a fracture of millimeter accuracy to see only one enemy and can be seen by one?...
Isn't there some paradox?...



PozdRawiam / Greetings

 

The problem with the step away from cover argument is that it fails to account for troopers being a cylinder and not a point. Part of the troopers volume will be back from the wall and another will be touching it.

 

I make a post with a can of worms before I go to bed and I come back to this.



After talking to some people I get why the video from Wolf was made, why the people who are in it are present and why playing with intent is so tied to the notion of premeasuring now.

Without naming names, I think the person that video was directed at had been abusing the notion of Intent far beyond where anyone would consider reasonable and had dived head first into premeasuring with an intent to circumvent the rules wholesale.

I think that experience and the context in which it occurred have soured "Play by Intent" for much of CB's rules writing and playtesting crew.

It might be useful if the actual meaning of "Play with Intent" as understood by the majority of the English speaking playerbase was defined as clearly as possible.

@Todd or @Plebian can someone get on this as I'm taking a new born home today and thus my time (and life) belongs to her.

 

In the real world, that "model" in the diagram would still have cover relative to the enemy as it moves away from the wall. Humans don't have to adhere to the abstracted base contact rule in order for an intervening object to potentially stop a projectile headed their way.

Also, in the real world, we don't simultaneously occupy every point within a 4-5' wide 6' tall cylindrical cloud.

If anything, the abstraction of the game makes it harder to slice the pie than it would be in real life. Sorry, but this argument has been debunked before. Using real world examples to explain why it shouldn't be easy to slice pie and retain cover in Infinity actually illustrates that the opposite should be true.