thoughts on Play by intent

hell, even arguing that you can force someone to do something they havent declared is questionably rules legal, theres no way for a player to really do something that they havent decalred. so if they declare they are moving to X position you cant argue that they actually declared they were doing somehting else

 

That was an example of other ways that "intent" has been applied to break the rules. I'm not going to speak to what every specific person here believes. You can ask me about LoF to a point on the game board and I will tell you what troopers on the board look like they have LoF to the best of my ability. I don't have a problem with "pie slicing", you simply have to be in a position to not incur multiple AROs when you attempt to do so. This means that it will naturally be harder to achieve in some situations over others, much like the real life cornering situation the game attempts to emulate.

I'm not trying to punish anyone, I'm trying to actually play the game the way it's supposed to be played. If you want to house-rule things in your meta, have fun. You're just not playing the same game. And if you take your minis and walk out of a tournament mid-game, that has been well-established to be extremely poor sportsmanship on your part.

What are you even talking about?

 

I am not fallowing you. If you tell me where I need to move to only provoke the ARO's I want, then when I move to that place I can only provoke the aro's you told me about (barring any hidden deployment) correct?

 

I really think Mac's hit the nail on the head here, because the real issue is whether people want to play the game the way the game creators intend, or whether we feel we can interpret the rules in one way or another to create new games.

Myself, I'm very much with him in wanting to play the proper game and be clear to whomsoever I'm playing that whatever else we do for preference, convenience, time-saving or whatever other reasons needs to be clearly distinguished from the actual rules.

And so returning to @Vaulsc's video, whilst it may well help people understand this debate, it also deliberately promotes the view that there are two ways to play the game, and I'm pretty sure that will surprise the game creators who think there's only one!

 

Give me a break, no one here has the authority to claim their viewpoint is the way the game is "supposed" to be played (this was aimed at Mac's comments, before I saw Wolf's- I too would like to know the intended method of play, so we can move past the divisiveness of this debate).

Barely two pages in, and we already have some great examples of the man reason why this discussion is toxic and should just die (or better yet, be publicly burnt on a pyre by CB). The goal posts, i.e.- the actual definition of "intent", change constantly.

That's why I mentioned Infinity simply being a conversation. A conversation that assumes both people want to win/lose based on tactical decisions made with all the available information a player is allowed. A conversation that also acknowledges the fact that if one person can't reasonably keep a model out of LoF by an imperceptable fraction of a measurement, the other person can't reasonably declare the same model is within LoF by the same imperceptible fraction of a measurement. Some sort of compromise has to be made, and I and the vast majority of people I've played with (warning- anecdotal evidence) are okay with that compromise coming from the open and constant communication that this game requires and even thrives on.

 

Maybe I misspoke myself or Mac. I don't myself presume to know how to correctly play the game, but a correct style is certainly knowable and that's the game I (and I think he) want to play. Is that (clarified) position an outrageous idea?

 

Correct, if that's where your model actually ends up.

We have specific examples in the rules text of intending to go so far, not making it, and having to suffer the consequences. I'm not sure how that can just be ignored. Intent isn't good enough on its own to play the game, it is simply the first step in spending an order. Would it be nice for CB to clarify this whole mess? Absolutely. I will never oppose further clarification of the proper interpretation of the rules.

 

And?
I want to play the game that the rules allow, any game with a healthy competitive player base is going to creates new tactics and strategies that the creators never saw. If they are however unhappy with those rules and feel it is bad for the game then they are free to change it.
If I am playing Magic the Gathering and I get a combo off that will allow me to make infinite squirrels, I am going to look at my opponent and say "It is my intent to make 500 squirrels, mind if I just do it or must we go over each trigger and effect for every 500 copies?"
99.99% of the time he/she is just going to let me do it.

It is effectively the same thing here but people are not fully grasping that I think.

 

?
Well yes if I ask you where is it safe and then move to some other place then I would obviously not be safe...

 

Yes, situations that are based on an unknown factor, which is the actual point a model can reach based on its available movement. That is not the same as acknowledging or agreeing on the point where a model's silhouette can obtain LoF or provoke AROs (also LoF), a known factor that the rules explicitly say we are obliged to share.

This was a blurb that was added, presumably, because some players actually argued that they didn't have to help their opponent with this. I say "presumably" not because I'm presuming this happened, because people actually argued that they didn't have to help their opponent determine LoF. In several cases, this was actually part of anti-intent player's attempts at making their case. Which is why it blows my mind when anti-intent players claim this isn't about "gotcha" gaming, despite the fact that it was obviously added to counter that type of mindset.

No matter how we perceive our personal view points, whether or not you feel you're obliged to openly communicate and assist your opponent in accurately assessing the state of the tabletop is very clearly the heart of this debate.

Go ahead though, someone twist what I just said to somehow be about five order take-backs, or the most extreme case of pie-slicing where you somehow have three vertically stacked AROs, so we can go around in circles for fifteen more pages. :tongueclosed:

 

As I have said already, I have no problem discussing LoF with my opponent, as it is Open Information. I will give honest answers to any questions on the topic, as per the rules of the game. The problem with Intent gaming is that once you've determined such a place that you want to be exists, that doesn't mean you get to automatically be in that place. You still have to get your model to the correct spot, and for deciding exact placement (movement of a model with no pre-measuring), the obligation of accuracy is on you.

I'm not pulling this out of some random extreme hypothetical, I've actually had specific games occur where someone didn't like the ARO I just declared and went with the "woah, wait, that's not really what I meant!!" Take-backsies are a problem. Intent is the declaration step of the order. It doesn't cover resolution of the order as well. The "heart of the debate" isn't a problem with communication, at least not with me.

 

Ok I agree that I still have to physically move the model. This would be important for say a hidden deployed hacker who will want to know if you move into his hacking area. I still doubt there is anyone who disagrees with anything you are suggesting.
Your example of how intent is bad is not really telling me much. Maybe you can give me another example?

 

"Intent" isn't bad. Intent is the first step in the process, Intent is your declaration of an order. In the Order Expenditure Sequence, Intent is steps 1-6, but there's still steps 7-9 that resolve the actual outcome of everything that you declared your Intent to be. (Since Movement is executed immediately this does get somewhat jumbled up.)

If someone declares that they intend for this smoke template to block LoF to X location, they need to place smoke such that it actually does block LoF. I will happily even suggest that it probably needs to be a little to the other direction in that case. But once they have placed the smoke and rolled for it, if it isn't blocking LoF to the X location, or they then move the model on the next order and it ends up being at X - 1 inch because of a short-fall in movement calculation, the ARO exists, despite what the declared intent of the player was.

Similarly with slicing the pie (which is apparently the one biggest sore spot for people in this debate, for some reason), you can declare your intended movement to corner on my troopers set to ARO, and I will discuss with you where LoF looks to exist with no problem. However to properly declare the movement you need to actually describe the route (moving along this path to here) and then place the model after measuring it to be sure you can make it to the end point desired. Once you have measured/placed, your intent doesn't get to adjust where the model ended up, it's time to move on and declare AROs based on what is actually happening on the board. If you've sliced as you intended, and I only get my one ARO, good job. If not, I declare any eligible AROs, and better luck next time.

 

Then you don't understand that people use intend just to avoid this and make the game faster, if we both agree that there is a point that a troop can reach whit his movement where he get the lof that he want avoiding all the others then we play that way. We put the model the closest to that specific point on the table that we can and move on, we don't check lof again (unless hidden deployment)

 

Oh I understand perfectly that position. I just don't find it to be defensible in the rules system. You're extending your opponent a courtesy by assuming that he's placed himself correctly, and in a friendly game that's fine, but that's not how the game actually works. This also isn't any kind of significant difference in time, either.

 

Yes you are extending your opponent a courtesy by allowing them to skip a needles and time consuming step. That step still needs to be taken but simply having the two players agree on the outcome only speeds up the game.
Let me put it this way. In the game of Star Wars X-wing it is pretty common to have to pull out lasers and call over judges to verify lof and those models are hardly ever more then 8 inches away. How much harder and more prone to argument is it going to be in infinity?
The more pedantic you are then the more pedantic your opponent has to be to counter your "gotcha" gameplay.

If I am pie slicing and move out to what I believe is only enough to draw the ARO I want and you disagree with my assessment we are going to have to call a judge over to verify potentially EVERY time.
Intent is nothing more then a courtesy that allows us to simply agree on lof and skips arguing over it.

 

So you agree that intent is a courtesy extended to your opponent to bypass the actual Line of Fire rules in the game?

I mean, if we're arguing over what house rules your meta uses, I have no stake in that discussion. I'm just talking about the written rules themselves.

I do feel it is in poor form for the "intenter" side to constantly try to degrade people with the various name-calling and "moral high ground" language, acting as if playing the game per the rules is somehow something that only awful people would do. Calling it pedantic gotcha game play does nothing to help your argument.

 

This sounds more, like your opponent had a problem, cause he made a mistake and not you.
I asume he declared the intent of what he wanted to do with his miniature and you declared an ARO that messed up his plans, which i would call poor sportsmanship and not as a problem with playing by intend.

 

Playing by intent is agreeing to ignore what is on the board in favor of what you discussed above the board. I prefer to play based on what was actually on the board. The discussion and communication is a means to gather information in order to prepare how you should declare your order, it is not in and of itself the entirety of the game.

This is true whether we are talking about movement, pie slicing, smoke templates, or any other mechanic in the game.

 

Then you have a problem with take backs or rewinding orders, but that's not "intent". In most cases "intent" is about desired model placement, and communication of LoF and the ability to act/react. In extreme cases, it's about reaching an agreement over model location when the table, models, or even our own ability to accurately perceive the battlefield situation is lacking or problematic. Take backs are an etiquette issue, sometimes resulting from lack of communication, and other times player experience, recollection, etc. While I'm personally okay with them (up to a point), I've never argued that they must be acceptable to everyone because "intent."

Let's say an opponent moves their model to a corner, says they're done (or says nothing at all), and then changes their mind after you declare AROs. No one was playing using "intent" in this situation, just because you claim it or they claim it. You were both simply neglecting to communicate properly.

On the other hand, if the same player says, "I'd like to move up to that corner, right here (points to the table or places a Silhouette), who would have LoF?", you're obliged to tell them that. Furthermore, if they ask what type of AROs they can expect (types of weapons, modifications from equipment or inclusion in a link team, etc), you're obliged to share that as well (that's all open info). If they don't ask, do you have to tell them? No, but many of us feel like it just makes more sense to go ahead and volunteer that info for the sake of the speed and quality of the game. Why wouldn't you, considering it would help avoid the situation you're complaining about?

Similarly, pie slicing is a LoF issue. Just like any issue where you can't accurately determine LoF, you have to discuss it and come to an agreement. That doesn't necessarily mean infinitesimal pie-slicing is always okay because...geometry. Should it work in most cases? Sure, but I've come across the occasional situation where it really is too close (usually two models above each other), and I've either declined to allow it from my opponent or admitted that I didn't deserve it myself. Again, you have to have a conversation, which ideally extends to the model placement (conceding that "sure, you can see just one, but you need to move back a just a hair...yep, right there is fine," is extremely common).

Regarding the precision placement issue, if you think we can come together, communicate, and agree on a spot where LoF does/doesn't exist (which I think you do), but then decide your participation in that conversation ends when it's time for me to place my model on that spot, then yes we do have a communication problem.