thoughts on Play by intent

There's no way I can keep up with this topic that is spammed to hell and back, but in case noone mentioned:
From Line of Fire rules:

"The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a model or Marker to any point of the volume of another."

So, LoF only exists between models and/or markers. If you want to be technical here, you opponent can also be all technical and tell you if there is LoF between his unit and yours while they are in their current positions. After you perform your movement, your opponent will tell you if there's LoF to your new position, or, accordingly to "everything is simultaneous" principle, if there's LoF to any position your unit occupied during this Order's movement. There is technically no such thing as "LoF to some empty space you may or may not intend to occupy by the end of the movement", rule-wise.

What you're talking about can be called "field of view" and there's no such term in written rules of Infinity, as far as I know.

 

It has to exist, though, for it to be possible to do things like throw smoke grenades on the ground.

 

Yeah, but the rest of the rules clearly refers to LOF as an area.

In either case I feel like this topic is causing way too much aggression and line-drawing between players that will just risk seeping into other conversations on this forum. Is it possible to maybe force an "agree to disagree" and lock the topic? @psychoticstorm

 

I think I agree with maht, I do respect everyone here and I dont think its worth the risk of offending each other

 

...opens up possibility to declare BS attacks

Sorry, had to.

 

As far as I am concerned we have our answer. Furthermore I suspect most games get played with intent after a little time even by players are strongly opposed to the idea intent. furthermore considering intent only speeds up gameplay
Last, outside the initial shock of being pie sliced there are literally no gameplay downsides to adopting intent.

The arguments have been made and we understand but disagree with the opposing side. If psychoticstorms post was not sufficient then at this point we just simply disagree.

 

I would have locked it a while ago, but it has shown its face again on this forum and it will show again and again until it is resolved.

I do not mind locking it and opening a new thread myself about it, but I want to know a clear line of argument of both sides the argument here is so messed up I cannot see the sides of the arguments and what is and is not debated.

 

I did make a summary. Did anyone have any objections to that or anything they felt needed to be added?

 

That's kind of a huge deal though. However, I will not go further in the matter, especially since people here seem to be in slight disagreement even on matters related to pre-measuring.
So I'll just leave it at that.

 

@Wolf how can LOF aids come out when LOF is a requirement to declare a BS attack?

Unless, of course, we are supposed to be guessing if we actually have LOF and at resolution placing silhouettes and realizing we didn't in fact have LOF and we switch to idle?

That sort of directly contradicts what open information is...

I would really like to know if wandering the table dropping laser lines during a game is, in fact, incorrect. It speeds up gameplay a considerable amount. If so, then we go back to asking tons of questions about what can be seen and what can't, especially since the LOF definition is problematic in the model to model/marker.

This is bigger than intent vs not-intent, it could shatter peoples ideas on basic gameplay that have been established for years.

 

Incorrect ideas are incorrect, regardless of how cherished and long held they are... and yes, if you make a mistake in your positioning and don't have LoF, then you have to switch to an Idle. And, once again, the reactive player only has to advise what LoF is extant at the declaration of the Order. You *are* supposed to be estimating, and hoping to get it right. If you don't, then it's on you. We don't get to say, "I want to Move to Point X, in LoF of enemy 1 and out of LoF of enemy 2." You declare, "I'll move to Point X" and then move there. After you've finished the move, and your opponent has declared their ARO, then you measure LoF and see who can see and shoot who. While your intent may be one thing, your intent is superfluous outside of stating what point you wish to move to. If you get it right, great, but if you picked the wrong spot, too bad.

To summarize: I declare an Order, starting with the first Short Skill of the order being Move. My opponent advises of any existing LoF on my trooper that could disrupt the Order. I declare my intended ending point, perhaps placing a marker there to make sure my base will fit, and then choose a viable path within the Move skill rules. I measure, and place my miniature at the ending point. My opponent declares their ARO, and I declare my second skill. We check for LoF and Range, and then proceed to Resolve.

 

I have yet to see a person do this in practice, including you, in a Game of Infinity.

Thats why a distinct determination of what we should be doing matters a lot.

 

Well this is fun. Getting confused with stuff I thought was basic even. If some of these ideas are how the game is actually played, its very much a "gotcha" type game, and Im doing it wrong.

 

Alright guys, I've been following this along and thought this is worth a watch.



I find it extremey interesting as it's coming straight from the horses mouth.

 

On the basis of what Palanka said and demonstrated to me, if the situation is really tight and you can't tell if you have LoF by eye, then yes, you're taking the chance when you declare that attack that you may have incorrectly estimated your position.

We worked through several scenarios together, and in all of them that involved uncertain LoF the things he said and the demonstrations he provided were absolutely clear that we should check for LoF only when we check for range in Resolution.

We worked through a scenario in which he's trying to stay in cover and obtain LoF to an enemy model with ARO. I have a transcript of him estimating his first Short Skill: Move and then saying
"Then I measure my movement … ok, I can reach that point and get back; then I ask for the ARO.
[The ARO was to shoot back].
“After that, I declare my shoot [sic]. When everything is declared is when we check for line of sight [sic]”

At which point in the demonstration he gets out his laser pointer to test for LoF, then gets out the ruler and measures the distance for range. Of course, I could say a lot more about that session, but with respect to all, I don't think it'll play particularly well to a hostile audience.

 

What's "gotcha" about it? You say what you'd like to do, and see if you succeeded. If you fall short, and have to deal with the consequences, how is that on anyone but you?

What we SHOULD be doing and what we ARE doing are entirely distinct things. Might I play "intent" with my friends to accelerate things? Sure, but only after and because both my opponent and I acknowledge that we are adding something, something not included by the designers either as RAW or RAI, but rather our own unrelated and entirely unofficial addition. And if someone came along who, with an attitude of good sportsmanship, preferred to play entirely RAW, then that's their prerogative and I would accept it. Again, if you'd like to play intent, bully for you, but it is not in the rules, and is entirely house rules, utterly and totally outside of the ruleset created by Corvus Belli.

 

The largest concern i have for all of this is LOF is not being considered open information if it is being considered a "Measurement" instead of a "Determination".

Just opens up tons more questions...

 

Seems good summary to me. I would love to see an official clarification on the definition of pre-measuring in Infinity outside of measuring ranges and what LoF being Open Information means. Is using a laser pointer or silhouette a form of illegal pre-measuring? The answers to that would shock my gaming group to the core if you are not allowed to do those things (and not just my group, all of Alberta plays this way based on the last major tournament had in the province). As far as I can tell that is the crux of the matter, so it is a rules question more than an Intent question.

 

Interesting video, I think all the participants in this discussion should watch it.

 

Let's start with the following rules from the rule book and apply them to @A Mão Esquerda example.

"You can measure immediately after declaring Move and before determining where the trooper ends his Movement.
The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaring the real movement’s ending point."
Moving and Measuring pull-out p61

"If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and and places the trooper at the final point of its movement."
Order Expenditure Sequence p31

"When declaring any form of Movement, you must specify the exact route the trooper will follow, so that the opponent can declare the appropriate AROs."
General Movement Rules p61


To summarize: I declare an Order, starting with the first Short Skill of the order being Move.

This is correct you have declared your first short skill as Move

My opponent advises of any existing LoF on my trooper that could disrupt the Order.

This is also correct you are entitled to any information on open LOS at the start of the order.

I declare my intended ending point, perhaps placing a marker there to make sure my base will fit, and then choose a viable path within the Move skill rules.

This is correct and you are entitled to open information on LOS at any and all points of your units movement including your intended end point.

You are also entitled, by the rules, to declare your intended end position according to what your opponents units will have LOS too. This includes the final position you have declared by placing your marker. The marker as stated by yourself is a valid representation of the final intended position of the unit and is required for the accurate deceleration of AROs.

So according to the rules as written you can declare your intent to move to a position where your unit has LOS to only one or more than one of your opponents units. You can find this position by carefully measuring using laser pointers using the MK 1 eyeball and walking around the table and carefully placing your marker there which takes time and slows down the game. OR You can ask your opponents to tell you where the marker can be placed which fufils your stated intent and is entirely within the rules and involves the disclosure of open information in LOS.

Any claim that this position does not exist is negated by the use of the marker which represents your intended final position and is an accurate method of determining LOS and AROs either through visual aids, estimatttion or just asking your opponent for this open information.

I measure, and place my miniature at the ending point.

Correct as long as your unit has sufficient MOV value to reach your intended position. If not it has to stop at some point along this path be it the maximum distance along or some point before. This is the declared ending point mentioned in the rules above.

My opponent declares their ARO, and I declare my second skill. We check for LoF and Range, and then proceed to Resolve

All correct and the order is successfully resolved according to the rules.