Not even close. All you are doing is asking about position and what models can see. All you are doing is getting more information to make a informed decision, not taking back a decision already made. However the way you stressed "Takebacks never the less" is very political. One more advantage to intent that NEEDS to be stressed is that trying to determine line of sight is often far more imprecise then people think. In Infinity LoF is often more a mater of opinion then a provable fact.
Again not really. If your opponent asks if the Fusilier can pie slice, you simply remind him that the two of you already decided it can't be humanly done from this angle thanks to the Borak being bigger. Remember LoF is determined by agreement between two players even when playing without intent. The situation is fundamentally the same as if we were not playing by intent and you activate a troop and I declare two of my troops have ARO's on you. You kill one of them and tank the other. You then spend another order to kill my other guy but I tell you that you don't have LoF to him even though I said you did last order and you have not moved in those two orders.
It's funny as in here it's more of a casual thing. If I see that obviously my opponent forgot that there's a miniature on the other end of table and I know he mentioned about avoiding it etc. I might ask if they really want to make such a move or directly point them to the way that the seem to be missing (like really obvious movement of whole link into a mine which was just around corner).
Basicly this way of playing is much less stressful as it is really easy to avoid obvious/stupid "gotcha" moments when someone obviously brainfarted in a some obvious (for everyone) way.
This. Infinity isn't a game where I want to play casually and see what happens. When you count travel time, setting up and packing terrain, organising the game, writing a list, picking a mission and playing plus some before and after discussion we're talking at least 3 hours. That's a long fucking time to then make a dumb mistake which takes out a critical model and leaves you struggling for the rest of the game. As an adult with adult things to do, I aim to do everything to make sure that time is spent enjoying it rather than stressing about the minutae.
This motivated me to look those old Santa Barbara Wargaming videos I watched when I first started learning the game, fully expecting them to be long gone from the interwebs. Imagine my surprise when I found Aleph versus Nomads had been (relatively) recently re-uploaded. What a blast from the past! N2 Yams for the win!
This is a very important point that opponents of intent often misunderstand. Intent never allows you to do something that is not physically possible. It allows you to agree with your opponent what is physically possible (without pre-measuring) ahead of declaring an order so that the game proceeds in a cooperative manner. There is nothing in the rules which does (or could practically) stop you agreeing with your opponent what the objective laws of geometry would allow in a particular situation. If it is not geometrically possible to pie split an ARO, it's not possible, with or without intent.
Thanks for your answers, as I said I look it from the point of view of game rules and not from the point of a game play style and from that perspective if an order declaration can be taken back is important. Or in another perspective, how perfect can the information the player receives before declaring the order be? can he essentially plot out almost the entire order see if fits him and then decide if he will commit to it or not?
Well considering using a laser line isnt pre-measuring.... And the rule callout LOF that would disrupt the order. Id say laser line accurate. As to plotting out his entire path....yes...he can do that with or without intent storm. The rules dont limit how much detail you describe your movement path in. And no storm maybe its a language barrier but this all very specifically happens before the declaration. Thats in the rules. Its not a take back.
@psychoticstorm mate your not understanding I think. You don't spend the order yet. You say ok i want to move my guy here so only your Sniper can see me is that ok. They say yes. You THEN spend the order. So it's not a take back. Understand?
It's a slur, not an argument. Yes, with the exception of distances and what ARO the models entitled to one will declare.
Or they say no and you dont spend the order, or they say "back a few mm, There!" and then you spend the order.
Essentially the reactive player is communicating to the reactive player that their intended position (which used the enemy model as a point of reference) and the position of the model do not match (a violation of the rules if MOV was sufficient to reach the intended destination), so the active player adjusts the final position of the model. This all occurs before AROs are declared, so no HD pops prematurely etc.
I’d say no, because 1) it’s not in line with the “describe extant LoF” box nor with the order expenditure sequence. You ask extant LoF to see if you want to move forward with the mooted order, declare your first skill and, if it’s Move, your intended ending position. You then plot and measure a legal movement path, and see if your arrived at your intended destination. AROs are declared, and then the second Skill is declared. There’s nothing in there about “plotting out your entire order w/o declaring it and taking it back if it’s not what you hoped”. Where’s the risk, outside of uncooperative dice?
Huh coulda sworn you agreed with IJW.... Hey look at that, describe the movememt path in detail.... Again the detail ypu describe your path in shpuldnt even be up for debate.
I think this would be less of an argument if LoF *could* be verified as accurately as measuring. How the rules are written according to PS might assume this. If I could place a model where I believe I had LoF to only 1 model, and it was shown without doubt that I had LoF to 2 models I don't think anyone would have an issue playing that way. The thing is, a laser line is only slightly more accurate than just eyeballing and easy to use incorrectly. The fact I spent the order under the assumption I would only get 1 ARO and getting 2 immediately sets my opponent and I for disagreement. Without any form of verification, this can then become a difficult situation. Understandably your meta may vary, but its hardly the kind of unknown variable people want to travel hundreds of miles and spend many $ to encounter. The core issue that intent tries to avoid is primarily one of disagreement. By virtue of agreeing the potential LoF before declaring an order, both players can determine an agreeable location. The exact sequence may get mixed up and the perception of "take backs" can occur, but in theory this always occurs before an order is formally declared. Once an order is declared, if all the information is correct (ie. there isn't a new model which has LoF to the discussed path), there is no changing what happens. The fact there is no clear cut form of verification of LoF also makes any kind of ruling which relies on LoF being private and only open at certain phases of a turn, difficult to quantify and police. Messy even.
It's got nothing to do with take backs either. I dislike that you claim neutrality yet make claims like that that don't seem neutral at all. No he can't plot out the entire order before declaration because he can't pre-measure. What he can do is agree/ confirm with his opponent that what he is intending to do is what he is actually doing with regard to LOF, because LOF is open information and / or confirm which of his opponents can see a certain model / marker if placed in a certain position, again because LOF is open information. And he can do that before declaration, because open information is not limited to being provided during declarations.
What kind of risk are you hoping for? Shakey hands and bad visibility? There is more to the game than face to face rolls, like budgeting orders. Do you risk attacking defenders with a suboptimal unit because it is closer, or do you risk wasting orders to gain more favorable odds by re-positioning a better troop. Maybe your superior planning has been rewarded and the better troop is also the closest, causing you to have enough orders to win the game. These are the exciting decisions people appreciate playing the game for. Compared to these kinds of scenarios, missing a flat camo token that would have line of fire to your intended destination is a childish and stupid risk to have to consider
Ah, I obviously didn't articulate my point clearly enough. It's a very niche case and wouldn't come up often. An example might help, because I have actually had this come up in a game before, as the active turn player. "I'm going to spend an order on this fireteam, with this model as leader, and move out just far enough to trigger an ARO from that model there, with the intention that I do not trigger AROs from other models" Most of the time, people agree that's what's happening, and there's no contention about this whatsoever. But in this situation, my opponent asked me to explicitly trace the path the first short order Move with my fireteam with every model: I already knew that he had a TO Model (or an AD model), because his points didn't add up and he only had 9 orders in his first Combat Group. The potential issue I can see is that by spending most of a game playing intent, then switching to requesting an opponent draw exact movement paths and line of sight for a single order all of a sudden, it gives a degree of warning as to what to expect. For players activating a Fireteam or something with Ghost:Synchronized, they might spread out their models a little more widely than they would otherwise, to avoid losing everything to a template, or to limit the amount of models that could be seen by a particular point of the board where they realise their opponent might be hiding a TO Camo piece.
Thats nothing to do with intent. Ypu already have to move your link and describe everyones path every order. The fact that he only asked it for the relevant order is on him, he should have asked every order (or he may have just not been worried about the reveal) If it was me id be asking you how the link moves every order, and intent doesnt mean you dont do that its about predetermining the endpoints. But that aside what you are describing has nothing to do with intent and more to do with TO and link teams
