thoughts on Play by intent

Sure, but Facing and LoF hasn't become open information because the section says so in the same way like, for example, the Private or Open status of Hidden Deployment troops. It's just game data that's already Open Information in the usual sense of information that's known or knowable by both players.

It doesn't mean that players must give one another special information, because the players don't particularly have any information that they could reveal to one another anyway. They only have their own opinion and estimate (which I think is what @macfergusson was trying to say to @daboarder).

So the section is just stating what we already know. It doesn't somehow confer new characteristics on the data that might change or suspend other rules - such as being able to measure only after all Orders are properly declared. It's just expected that players should help one another take into account models with ARO's they'd overlooked or forgotten about.

It doesn't mean that one player could, should or must help the other position their pieces - there is no obligation for players to do anything like that in the rules or in that etiquette section.

 

Listen @Wolf, no offense (you seem like a nice person), but I'd rather not have a separate PM conversation with you about this. To be completely honest, I feel like there's perhaps a communication issue (bordering on "am I taking crazy pills"), because you seem to be equating things I've said about intent with justification of pre-measuring, but I haven't once claimed that was legal (either here, or in our PMs). In general, it's already a little frustrating re-posting the same things I've posted in past threads, and that feeling is amplified by having to duplicate those sentiments in our side conversation.

I don't understand how recollecting your conversation with Gutier about intent based play could possibly be perceived in a negative way. Knowing how to play the game correctly shouldn't be a secret available only to those who are able to attend a handful of events, and there's no reason why Gutier or anyone from CB should even want that to be the case. You say the two of you discussed game mechanics relevant to this topic for at least two hours, so why not share some of that? We're talking about rules, not secret CB info.

What I've got now is you starting at "the movement rules are clear," shifting to "that etiquette part isn't actual rules", and now it's, "well, that bit doesn't even mean what you think it means." Obviously, something doesn't mean what one side thinks it means, or we wouldn't be having this debate. However, just like all the times this has come up before, we're not really getting past that unless some new information is thrown into the mix.

 

:Shrug: I guess you guys are free to play the way you like and in a tournament setting while it might not win you any friends and might get you accused of slow play or even cheating it would be your right to run it without the shortcut of intent.
I don't think intent needs to be an official rule, it is perfectly fine being a gentlemen's agreement to speed up gameplay.

 

Well said, @Andre82 that's just what 'intent play' is.

 

wolf, your fundamentally wrong about what "open information" is, the rules specifically call out that its your responsibillity to provide it to your opponent, your not even allowed to remain quite and hope they dont ask, you have to inform them its that clear and if they ask you have to answer truthfully

 

I think everyone's happy with open information being freely shared on demand; I certainly am.

I myself mentioned the open/private army list information rules that I think you're referring to here (N3 rulebook p9; PDF p15 and Wiki) to point out that those rules describe information switching states between Open and Private.

I pointed out that this is fundamentally unlike the way Facing/LoF is always open information in the normal sense of the phrase anyway - information that's already known or knowable by both players.

 

I'd like to shift the discussion a bit, move away from interpretations and talk more about motivations and perceptions (I don't think we're going to convince each other or make any progress on the interpretation front). The anti-intent posters have made claims that they're being misrepresented and even attacked, but some of us don't really see any advantage to their interpretation in regards to a healthy positive gaming experience. Personally, it's hard for me to reconcile it any other way than cooperation = good, and lack of cooperation = bad.

Aside from being incorrect in your mind, how do you perceive the motivations that might lead someone to be more open to the intent interpretation? Despite acknowledging the positive aspects of it, the push back seems to be more focused on it being "incorrect" or "not something I have to do."

Whether you consider the etiquette blurb as mandatory or just a suggestion, aren't you still blatantly eschewing etiquette laid out by the game's designers? More importantly, knowing this is contentious interpretation, would you seriously go into say a tournament setting and argue that you don't have to observe the game etiquette described in the rule book?

I get that a big part of this is that we clearly don't agree with the application of the etiquette blurb. However, I'm still not seeing a convincing argument as to why it wouldn't apply during the physical movement and placing of a model, especially when you consider the spirit of what it's trying to convey. Do you really feel that it's only meant to help players take into account AROs/LoF part of the time? Why stress this element of the game, only to take half measures to address it?

There's debate over whether the person who cares more in a relationship or exchange is actually more likely to win or lose. Which are you? Do you feel like playing with intent potentially lessens your play experience in a way that is felt more or less deeply than another player's play experience might be impacted by perceiving you in negative light because you won't participate in the cooperative exchange they take for granted?

 

I think there's essentially three ways of handling intent. The third way is to place a model with very low accuracy because in theory you can gain LOF to only one model.

Hang on, some of you might be thinking, that's intent play heresy! No, that's not what is being posted by Todd etc. on the forums, but it is a reality that some people play in.
Forum intent is "we both help out with placement so that what you declared and what you played aligns" while this other high-theory intent takes advantage of this helpful way of playing to break some of the game (be it infinite slicing or gaining movement advantages that you shouldn't have). In some cases there's even second level of intent abuse with defining future LOF.
This is not - I repeat NOT - intent as discussed on forums, and I think a lot of the abrasiveness comes from fundamentally misunderstanding the difference.

Make no mistake, intent can be difficult to play with since where do you draw the line of how fine a slice you can make, just like how placement can be very hard to play with since the cognitive load increases to such extremes in some situations.

 

Quoted for emphasis. Playing by intent does not necessarily mean playing with infinitely fine pie-slicing, they're two separate (but related) concepts.

 

In chess, there's a concept that both players should want to play the best game possible. Note that it's not their best game, but the best game. This concept of aesthetics goes out the window in a competitive chess environment, because it's an essentially cooperative idea in a game that on its surface is purely competitive. If your opponent makes a 'non-beautiful' mistake, a player concerned with aesthetics would actually desire to correct him and allow him to make a different move.

To me it's the concept of a 'perfect' game, a deeply aesthetic concept, that separates the two groups.

Imagine a game where all the decisions can be traced to a solid foundation of logic, even if that means offering your opponent dozens of takebacks and both players placing models by their LOF intent rather than strict guess-and-measure. In this ideal of a 'perfect' game, the rules exist to provide a paradigm for the game's 'beauty'.

There is another ideal. Imagine a perfect game as a very simple: 10-0, 300-0, and there's no need to be concerned with a little discord between the handshake at the beginning of the game and the one at the end-- if there's a dispute then that's what rules are for.

These are obviously ends of a spectrum and people aren't all one or the other, but it's how I've always seen the dispute... people who all care about the same thing - a perfect game - but they define it differently and there will be some times when people who are on different parts of the spectrum will clash. To me, that's what a TO is for.

 

The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaration of the real movement's ending point. <http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Move>

The real question is very simple:

Is a trooper’s line of sight a valid reference when clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location during a move?

I believe a trooper cannot exceed it intended final location or it's MOV value.

 

Simply read, the meaning of this (rather poorly translated) rule is that you tell your opponent where you would like to move; you specify the entire route, as per the IMPORTANT! section; then you measure to discover your actual location.
Are we all in agreement that if we're playing by the rules, we can only measure once we've properly declared our movement?

 

This is an interesting post, thanks @locksmith. Do you mean that both factions are really looking for the same thing?

 

Hmm is that even right?
What is the point of declaring a movement path if you don't have to fallow your declared path?

It seams to me that your declared path is very important for determining where I have been after I move but utterly useless declaring before I move unless I have to fallow that declared (or should I say "intended?) path that is.

 

I'm sure that clearer language would help us all see some more agreement, which after all is what we want to achieve in the end if we want to play the game with one another. I'd be interested to read more if you could describe these more clearly @Mahtamori?

 

Well said, thank you @ijw

 

Well you do have to follow the route you describe, but when you measure, you may find you don't reach the end of it you over-estimated the limits of your MOV attribute. Or you might measure and discover that you under-estimated your movement, in which case you'd have to stick with your declared intent even if going a bit farther would be better for you.

Yes, if the path is at all complex, or involves multiple ARO's it can be quite important to use a silhouette marker so both players can see where you came from, where you said you wanted to go, and where you actually ended up. Using flat counters is pretty good, too.

So as above, you do have to follow your estimated path within the limits of your MOV attributes and stick with your estimate.

All of which is why using the term 'play by intent' is so pernicious; we're all playing with intention if we're playing properly. Not to mention that if the Buddhists have one thing to say about kindness, it's that 'intention' is a very important concept. I'd really like to see people using some other term for so-called 'play by intent' such as 'positioning by agreement' or 'notional positioning'. Maybe @Mahtamori can provide us a suitable vocabulary.

 

I will call it flying monkey bottoms if you like.

So if my declared movement would take me around an object and into range of your mine but then when I actually move the model I hurdle the object and never move in to your mine range... well we have to play it by declared movement correct?

So if line of fire is open information I could say declare I am moving 1 inch to the corner of the building and coming out just enough to see your first trooper but not your second trooper. After having declared my movement I would have to move out exactly to that spot. I could not move out any farther or any shorter unless I ran out of movement value correct?

 

In any relationship, the person who cares the least about it is the one who's in charge. And you can quote me.

As regards caring about Infinity, I play a lot more introductory and escalation games than I play full casual games or ITS events. My method is to gradually introduce rules as fast as the learner feels comfortable with the new information, which is great for them as student, but extremely difficult for me because I'm both teaching and trying to give them a decent game but the rule set is changing from one game to the next.

So playing with 'positioning by agreement' players is hardly a stretch for me - it's just another game where I'm not playing by the ruleset. And nor do I particularly mind, because although I want to play properly so I can practice for the next ITS, I'm generally happier to share their good company, and roll some dice. So yeah, I'm the loser in these relationships.

 

Not quite. If you described a route that goes around an object, then you must follow that path. Or if you described a path that goes over the object, then you must follow that path. You can't change the route you described because the outcome doesn't suit you.

If your intended path crosses the mine's Trigger Area and would activate the mine, but when you measure you discover that the model never entered the Trigger Area, then yes, you'd get away with it. It's a pretty cool aspect of the game design that players Flying Monkey Bottom style (did I get that right? ) are missing because they want to be absolutely sure of their outcomes instead.