Hi everyone, Ok, ok, the tile has "intent" and "pie" in the same sentence. But remain calm! It has occurred to me in the past that playing by intent can create weird situations when a model is not actually positioned where it should be. The following example is fairly dramatic and probably would never occur in real life, but I'm genuinely curious as to how different players solve it. It's my active turn and I move model A. My opponent and I have agreed to play by intent, and I indicate I move A close to the corner of the building so it can see C but not B. I did not notice D, and did not mention it. I place my mini, but instead of positioning it correctly (black A circle), it's a bit to much outside (red circle). Now, we agreed with my opponent that A cannot see B and reciprocally, so B has no ARO. But my opponent realises that from that position, D can see A. Which is weird, because geometrically, there is no way D can see A if B cannot... So how do you solve this? Right after the fact, you could move A back a tad, but what if you realise the issue much later? Can D shoot A say, the next turn?
We just go back and fix the positioning. We know that I intended to only see C. If we both failed to notice another model that would make that intention impossible, then we can easily rewind to fix our mutual mistake. If it turns out that it was impossible to only see C, then I'll spend the order some other way instead. Taking it further: in a recent game, my opponent started spending orders moving a unit across the board. His plan was to jump across a gully and murder my designated target, but I didn't know that yet of course. So after three orders he reached the gully and declared jump. At that point we both realized that I had an ARO looking at the landing spot, which he hadn't noticed. Solution: I offer to rewind three orders. He spent those orders because he thought that spot had no AROs, but he was entitled to know that there was in fact an ARO looking at that spot. (We then worked together and found a different spot for him to jump to which we both agreed had no AROs. He decided to jump there rather than rewinding three orders.) Rewinding is usually possible unless any rolls have been made in between. If dice have been rolled then we can't rewind and sometimes have to live with our mutual mistakes or fix them in less-than-perfect ways. But it works out fine as long as we both want us both to be making good decisions based on all available information. Your example above is a particularly easy one, because all it takes to fix the mistake is to move A over a couple of mm.
There's a couple threads in the Code One Rules forum regarding it, so probably easier to keep it all in one place.
In play by intent, one of the big advantages is returning the state of play to the agreed state, or one similar enough, in cases such as a bumped table or wild measuring device. In this case I would similarly offer the owner of miniature 'A' the opportunity to move their mini to where they declared they had intended to have it. Alternatively if I am the player of Mini A, I would allow my opponent the possibility of playing as though B does not have LOS, as agreed, but that D does have LOS, despite the reality of the table geometry.
Step1 check Lof with a line laser, so that you have a nice line marked on the table to move to, it will solve almost all LOF disputes. Step 2 move to a point that both you and your opponent agree that you can only see C Step 3 while moving hope your opponent isnt an asshat and says by the way I also have D back here you may want to nudge it back a bit, or you ask if you can nudge it back to not be seen, because it is reasonable to assume that had you remembered it was there you would have moved to black circle instead of the red.
Pretty much as @Tourniquet noted above - I and everyone else who plays locally owns a line laser, which lets us avoid the issue materialising. It's a super useful tool. But in the event that it came up (it might, if we were playing fast or missed something existing), we just correct the positioning of the model to represent the agreed state, in the same way we'd correct the placement of a model that got bumped.
Specifically to this case, I would point out this mathematical fact, which should resolve the issue. But this problem can be avoided by expressing intent more clearly: "I only want to see C".
This. Always this, regardless of how you play. Rolling back should never be anything but a massive courtesy past an order or two. The big benefit of playing with intent, as much as I enjoy the higher risk games when playing without it, is that you don't need to rely on imprecise tools like line lasers for those milimeter differences should your perception of the situation change or improve. Come think of it a sewing thread is probably the most precise and most portable LOF tool you can use.
Why are you suppressing actual meaningful discussion when this guy made the correct choice and didn't make a mess of the bigger thread with this secondary question? It's a specific situation he's asking intent players about, it's not about "should we play with intent or not". Back off, please, let us talk.
Because form experience I will not be thrilled to have five or ten threads exploded when I came back from work.
I did not mean this to be “another intent thread”, despite my tongue in the cheek title. It’s a specific question about how to deal with placement when you already agree to play by intent, not about whether intent is good or not or any of the other stuff. It was not meant to stir the mud. If you don’t see it as different enough from exiting threads, I’m happy to see this bit moved to an existing one. Honestly, it feels a bit stifling, but it’s your call as a moderator.
If I can make a suggestion -- could there be a single, dedicate megathread to discuss intent in N4 when it releases? And instead of locking the thread when people inevitably misbehave, can the individual misbehavers receive warnings, mutes, or bans if the conversation goes too far? I think one of the reasons that you see things like this prone to explode is that when one thread is locked, another inevitably pops up because so many people assume "I am not the reason for this, of course my part of the discussion is fine." It's also incredibly punitive to punish people who behave like adults for the actions of those who want to behave like children.
That never happens on this forum. The only banned people through the years were the FAQ Warcors and that was done by CB folks, not the single mod we have here. Red text is all that ever happens.
Ummm... yeah... you're incorrect. I'd leave it to them to bring up their specific cases, but I am personally acquainted with several folks who've copped bans... and considering the fact that one specific admin/mod for the forums has the title of "Banhammer", reserving the right to implement bans for them and them alone seems prudent... Edit: as does the idea of keeping any mutes/bans/suspensions between the admins and those under them, unless those hit with a ban choose to make it known.
If you refer to permanent ban, then yes, only that incident has resulted in permanent ban and even in this case there was an exception, if you refer in general for ban's then there have been several administered and are non permanent bans, we do not publish list of banned people and if we could we would make sure the forum does not display the ban of non permanent banned forum members in the period they are banned. People banned, the reasons been banned and the period of their ban is confidential between them and the company, we do not wish to create an "attack arsenal" for other forum members to use against any forum member that has been banned in the past. If any forum member has any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me or any other member of the moderation team.
