thoughts on Play by intent

Latest version online doesn't...

 

Correction, it does appear, but rather in the intro section, rather than in the movement section. I was wrong.

 

So in your scenario I know that both the Nisse and Fusi Fireteam can see that corner.

If I now say that it is my intention to move my unit along a path to that corner so that it has LOF to only the Nisse and place a shilouete marker there to mark this position as I eyeball it. you now are required by the open nature of LOF to tell me if this is the case or not.

If it is I attempt to move my unit to this position along My declared path using its Move skill hopefully having enough MOV to do so.

If It is not and the position I have chosen does not allow me to have LOF only to the Nisse then it does not fulfill my intention and I can ask you if there is a position in which my intention is fuffiled. By the open rules of LOS you have to tell me if there is such a position and we can use the shilouete marker to aid this process.

Should a position be found I now repeat the above and attempt to reach this position and ARO's can be declared.

If there is no position that fufils my intent then I cannot take back my declaration of the order, I still have to move my unit. I can however move to a new intended position along My declared path since my previous intended position does not exist as established by the above. This can be to move to a position out of LOF along the same path but ONLY if it along the same path as I initially declared since that part of my intent can be fulfilled.

 

The blurb doesn't need to be in the book at all. They put it to encourage good sportsmanship and cooperative play. It isn't a rule, just a clarification on how one should approach the game with their opponent. The fact the LoF is Open Information means I can check it and ask at any time. It is required by you to not lie about your LoF any time I ask that. What isn't required is for you to help me use that info to reach the spot I want to. The blurb is simply asking you to help me find that spot faster so we can move along with the game and by extension not have to be as precise with our model placement (between terrain and posing it can be hard regardless) since both players agreed that only "X" models have LoF and therefore AROs.

Tables/terrain/models get bumped all the time so being off by mm's should never be a big deal and demanding that kind of accuracy in placement is just a step away from an argument. If both players work together and agree on something before it shifted it makes things run smoother ("oh this guy can see you now, when we checked before he couldn't lets place that back a little more").

For me this is all about getting a positive and engaging game experience. Both players are working to ensure that their intentions are clear and that things aren't put into chaos by a nudged building/model. Cutting the pie is also made easier this way but in reality it isn't that hard to do anyway and I don't see anywhere in the rules that you are forced to expose more of your model. If you play recklessly you can trigger more ARO's but that is on you not the rules. I prefer to play faster and with as much precision as we can get out of a model game and the Play By Intent blurb helps me accomplish that.

 

We have already established intent is part of the rules. We have gotten the next best thing to a FAQ confirming it as well.
Your argument should really move on to why this should not be in the rules. What is the advantage to the game of not playing with intent?

 

Another option: CB will address it in Paradiso N3. We know that they have let things fester this way because they intended to do something about it "mañana". A remote possibility, I know.

Even an example of play for this would help. Or a definition of intent for purposes of the rules.

Also, I like that Chad was throwing a jerkilles mini :) Sweet.

 

I've very much based my remarks in this debate - particularly with regard to the Etiquette section, on a lengthy personal duscussion with Gutier (Lusquiños, Director, rules author) on 27th July 2017.

During the discussion, we worked from the English version for my benefit, but wanting to cross-reference the Etiquette section, Gutier could not find it in his Spanish rulebook. It wasn't an exhaustive search, but it's just what A Mao has posted.

Maybe there are revised versions of the Spanish rules, or perhaps both A Mao and Gutier overlooked it somewhere else in the text; I don't know. Can you give us an edition and page reference, please?

For what it's worth, (I can't speak officially on behalf of CB) Gutier's personal explanation of that section to me is very much as A Mao has posted, and I hope his and my posts read reasonably consistently.

The topic of 'play by intent' was later discussed with Fernando (Liste, Director), HellLois and Palanka and I also had the benefit of personal instruction from Palanka.

I'm entirely clear that A Maos posts are a good representation of those views too.

 

Someone once used their personal conversation with CB employees to justify writing a lengthy article on Bell Of Lost Souls that asserted that "Play as it falls" was THE OFFICIAL WAY TO PLAY Infinity.

This was in no way backed up by anyone from CB as official and the author had to publish first a correction and subsequently a retraction of their artice.

Bottom line is unless it comes straight from the horses moth in a published form then it's not official in any shape way or form.

We have a published section in the main rule book and in the FAQ which backs up the intent method of play. We have nothing at all which backs up the alternative interpretation.

 

Don't bring that mess into this...

 

I'd rather have not since it was a dark period for all concerned. However it's relevant since it was another occasion where personal conversation with CB staff was said to overrule any published material and would have set a very bad precedent.

I have had allot, and I mean allot of conversations with Carlos about the rules during BOW filming. About what was tried in playtesting, what worked and didn't work and why things are the way they are. I'd still never suggest anything I've heard from him was official as regards the rules and even once when filming a battle report when Intent as a concept came up he said he wouldn't give an official answer since only published material counts.

 

I think we can all accept that only an official statement from CB can properly represent their position on any topic.

As far as what I've said, I'm comfortable backing up A Mao's posts, because they read exactly like the explanation I myself received first hand; I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say that.

You've far greater experience of CB staff than most of us, but you don't seem to want to say (even in this unofficial situation) that they did or did not say to you what they thought of 'play by intent'?

 

And the published material references no more than advising what LoF would "disrupt" an order, nothing about helping your opponent to find their perfect spot where they can avoid everything and to play to their "intention". An order is declared, as an opponent I offer the courtesy of stating which of my units currently have LoF, my opponent declares their end point, they measure, they confirm it's a valid point and path, they place their model, and then they ask for AROs. If they want to catch me out of cover, declare, I advise of any existing LoF, they pick end point, they measure and move, place trooper, I declare AROs, and then they can see (assuming the second Short Skill is a BS Attack) if they have me out of cover. Anything more that we might do to accelerate play or as an understanding between friends is fine, but it's not contained within the rules, and if another play insists on playing differently, then we could defend the convention of our meta, but we're not defending the actual rule text, and should act accordingly.

 

Its because I know them that I don't want to say since what I say might be considered in a roundabout way to be official or word from official sources when it absolutely is not. Only published material is official.

Again that directly contradicts what I posted earlier and came directly from the rules. On the active turn the player played to their intent, if you hinder that belt denying them information which is open you are not playing the game according to the rules.

Take my example above and show where exactly the rules are not played to the letter?

 

If they're entitled to the information, they can have it. They're entitled to LoF that exists when the order is declared as a matter of courtesy. They're not entitled to a whit more. "Do you have LoF to me?" "Yes, I do." "Do you have LoF to this point?" "Yes." "Do you have LoF to a Silhouette of this size at this point?" "That doesn't exist, so I can't know." "Do you have LoF if I move to this point?" "You've not moved to that point, so I can't say." Again, you are entitled to what exists as the order is declared, no more, no less.

 

so given we have arguments that the rules arent really the rules and that Open Info can be lied about I cant help but find myself coming back to my original point.

If you try this hogwash in a game I will either call a TO (and no TOs I know personally would stand for lying about LOF or the idea that the rules are guidelines) Or in a friendly game walking away and finding a different opponent.

 

Except that all of those questions could be answered by the asking player by simply going to the other side of the table and checking themselves because LoF is open information (it, quite literally, can't be private). The point of the blue box is to compel the person being asked to answer honestly to speed up the game so the asker doesn't actually have to do that.

 

I think we reached the point of thread "reboot", can somebody summarise me what the discussion is about now? people can comment to agree or correct on the summary.

Because at the moment you are on way too many fronts and paths.

 

I feel you are different contradicting the rules as written and selectively ignoring one aspect of open LOF.

I gave you an exact situation where all aspects of open information, movement by intent and positioning were covered according to letter of the rules and you chose not to interpret the one part intended position that is specifically mentioned in the text.

 

It should also be remembered and noted by all that, for the most part, due to geometry the differences in models LOFs are going to be huge, we're talking 5 mm or more on average. For almost all practical intents and purposes there is never going to really be an argument about pie slicing as it is going to be obviously easy to do.

 

Then they can *do* that. I'm not required to give any LoF beyond that which exists at the moment the order is declared. Additionally, the given sequence for the order says nothing about, "check to make sure all possible approaches are covered, with your opponent assisting you in making sure all of your calculations are correct". It states declare skill, indicate intended ending point, confirm path you wish to take, measure to make sure path is viable, place, with the caveat that your opponent advises what models have LoF when the order is declared.

If I make a mistake in the path I decide on and delineate, or I make a mistake in choosing the point I want to end at, that's on me. If I want to make sure I get my opponent's mini out of cover, then I declare my move, my opponent advises who has LoF at that time, I pick my end point, measure and pick my path, and see if I got it right.