thoughts on Play by intent

I thought 'Storm just meant it was concluded in the sense of finished and finally over with, and that we should let sleeping dogs lie?

 

That's what agreeing to disagree means, is it not?

 

Well, I guess so Maht, yeah.

 

My personal experience of Spanish players at the Interplanetario last Summer was that all of them were playing a regular 'estimate the positions by eye' game, and none of those with whom I spoke even understood what 'intent play' is, which stands to reason.

The issue came up for further alcohol-aided peer review with Polish players who said they used to play that way, but no longer did, having changed their mind about its validity. They also said it was a style that was previously very popular in the large clubs in Warsaw, and that although it's still fiercely defended in some quarters, the idea of the style is probably tending to be less popular than it was.

I can only comment on what I saw for myself of course, so I'm interested to hear other experiences and to find out how players of other nationalities have integrated the style or not.

 

Giemven my mate came 10th and plays the same way as the aussie meta...

Anecdotes arent helpful or indicatove of your argument

 

Thank you,
I know you must be very harried but open communication and a simple answer with the caveat of "is subject to change if it turns into a problem" was a wonderful way to handle this.

Anyway I do think intent is not really the issue, Maybe for Wolf and a few others it is sure, but I think the majority of people who are opposed to intent are actually hopeful it will stop/limit pie slicing.

 

I mean, it's nice that @psychoticstorm has the rational viewpoint, but he's not really part of the CB rules team.

 

I think that is as close as we are going to get tell the next official FAQ, and I don't expect more then one or two of those a year.

 

Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate that he engaged in the conversation (thanks Psychotic Storm), but I'm not sure he actually provided anything I'd consider a definitive clarification.

But this is N3, and things are going to be differ... wait a minute, we're how many years into N3 now? :tongueclosed:

 

I think I don't know what 'intent' means as distinct from 'pie slicing' in this sentence, Andre - are they not different aspects of the same thing?

And to be absolutely clear, my position is that I hope we'll eventually agree how Corvus Belli expect us to play their game, and if we want to play differently in a single game, or in our group, or in our country ;-^ that we'll be honest and clear about differentiating it from the rules.

Currently, and as we saw in both the debates on the same topic in the last 18 months, people don't properly clarify their positions on the rules or their different style of play, and instead just end up shouting "It's in the RULES; if you don't agree with us, you're CHEATING!"

I'm sure it should be possible to say "We used to argue about this, but agreed that the rules for movement and measuring mean A, B, and C. However, in our game/club/country though, we've always preferred to play B, C and D - would you like to play that style with us?" And absolutely not "You MUST play this style with us, otherwise you're disrupting the community!"

Here's my best summary of the differences in the styles as far as I understand it; other members are invited to correct, add or amend so we can get some kind of definitive positions.

We know that Infinity has a number of distinguishing mechanisms including Face to Face rolls, ARO's, and combat Modifiers for Range and Cover. And in the simplest reading of the rules, regular play style is that these elements are managed by players estimating the relative position of their models.

So if you can judge the correct distance of one model to another, you might get a positive Range MOD. And if you can judge the correct position to peek from cover and 'slice the pie' you might obtain only one of multiple possible ARO's. If you get the estimate wrong, you don't get the tactical outcomes you wanted.

By contrast, the 'play by intent' faction suggest that the rulebook can be interpreted to mean that when they're moving their units, players needn't estimate the positions of their models at all. Rather, players can and should simply state the tactical outcome for movements that they want to obtain.

If they're both agreed that the tactical outcome is mathematically possible and within the unit's MOV range, the model itself is simply positioned in a credible location, and the desired outcome is automatically obtained without checking if that is the actual outcome.

Thus in the 'peek and pie slice' example, one players can say they want to obtain only one ARO, and if that's theoretically possible, no matter how minute the measurement involved would be, the model can simply be placed in a suitably representative location, and it only obtains one ARO regardless of the actuality. (Ie. if you inspected the position, and there were two ARO's, it still only gets one)

In summary, in regular play, the players must estimate movement for tactical outcomes; in 'play by intent', the players notionally position models by agreement.

 

This is a game with invisible models.
I don't care that there is a "theoretical" position you "intend" to move your model to that, thanks to sub-degree precision, only gains LOF to one enemy and no others nearby. Place your model/silhouette where you intend to fire from and make sure it's where you want it to be before you turn around to let your opponent check for HD LOF. Because the only way to avoid arguments over one player's "interpretation" of a "theoretical" position and the LOF to it vs. another players "interpretation" of that "theoretical" position, is to leave the model/silhouette in an actual place so that both can see.

And should you be playing a faction with no access to TO, I'd expect you to show exactly the same courtesy regardless.
(though not vs. Steel Phallus, screw those guys)

 

Wow, lot to unpack here. Where do I start.

First, models in Hidden Deployment have absolutely nothing to do with this argument. In fact, they're specifically an element of the game that intent can't possibly save you from.

The fact that you have to place a model onto a predetermined point of the table based on memory, drawing, written note, or photo means that any hard to determine LoF situations resulting from that are pretty much handed to the HD player unless the other person wants to question their integrity. If that's the case, you're dealing with an entirely different problem.

Also, I have never once had an opponent ask me to turn around so they can check LoF. Then again, I typically don't think twice when an opponent randomly checks LoF, because LoF is open information, and they could simply be checking future vantage points/approaches. Would I do so, if asked? Sure, but I'd consider that a more obvious tell than checking LoF. On the other hand, if I found out someone was asking me to turn around repeatedly just to keep up some sort of ruse, I'd be pretty pissed.

No one is arguing that a model doesn't have to be placed appropriately. Placing a model appropriately doesn't stop LoF arguments from happening, which is why it's good to have a conversation about what LoF exists. In contentious situations, actual LoF is still what both players agree it to be.

 

Sheesh, I see I've missed a lot. I'd really like the colors and font size for the subforums to change a bit.

First of all I think every attempt to divide this situation into correct answer (mine) and incorrect ones (everyone's who's disagreeing with me), is counterproductive, pointless and ultimately toxic. We won't reach a solid conclusion on this, because the corresponding rules aren't as clear as we would like them to be. Otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation again. We will disagree on this and we will play slightly different Infinity games. And I see nothing wrong with that. When I'll visit another gaming group I'll ask about their approach and play by their rules. Same goes for visiting a tournament held by someone else. I'm also not overly concerned about deciphering CB's intent (ha ha) on this, because a) they aren't the one playing my games, me and my opponent are, and b) without their input we're unable to decipher it anyway.

Now, I agree with psychoticstorm that the question isn't if the game should be played with intent, but about the desired level of intent. In every situation described active player should be able to declare their intent, and together with opponent decide, if that action is possible.

I also believe that macfergusson's solution is the best answer for the Infinity I want to play. Simply because it allows for mistakes, and mistakes are good for the game. Overusing intent eliminates any chance of acting players to screw up by the numbers, and this is a wargame, where players should be allowed to take calculated risks, misread the situation, or forget about something important. Active players have enough advantages going for them to eliminate that possibility.

What's more we're all really talking about that one situation, where active player slices the pie to get that perfect shot without exposing his unit to additional AROs. It only shows up in one situation - when the units on ARO duty are very close and by specific angle to the corner in question. Otherwise it's usually fairly easy to find a desired position without having to place the model with surgical precision. This means that there was an actual effort and risk on reactive player's part to set up such situation. It can be exploited by the active player in other ways. There's no reason for giving him an additional advantage. I'll gladly and happily share LoF information, and then allow him to position his model basing on that information. They we'll check for AROs.

Additional point is that I'm not welded to my solution. If I'll run into player who disagrees with me and we can't convince each other on spot, I'm fully prepared to settle it by a dice roll.

 

Dammit, how are we ever going to keep the heated debate going if people keep being so reasonable!

 

it answered my question pretty clearly. Also twice a year is pretty normal for a proper FAQ

Except I don't actually think it does unless you are playing fast and sloppy. If I am playing carefully by going to your side and checking the board then rechecking my side and god help us if something gets bumped. In the end my model will be exactly where it needs to be. The only two possible outcomes is I get my pie slice, we argue and need a TO too settle the dispute. There will not be mistakes, only arguments and lost time.

 

I know, right? But how about you flame me hard, I'll hose some oxygen into the blaze, and we should be good for another fortnight?

 

My personal thoughts?

I can play with either. I would prefer RAW and trying to work with the models and the table and the distance to pie slice, but if I guess wrong, that's my bad and I better split my fire. If people want to play by intent though, I am also fine with that. It is a game and I want to make sure both myself AND my opponent is having a fun time. I believe that the game as written though, intent is a direct contradiction tot he rules, but if both players agree to it does not affect the game adversely because both players have the same access.

 

I think I need to explain a few things and make some more examples.
First of all we need to clarify a few things
Premeasuring is not allowed by the rules, so any attempt to premeasure is not allowed, however creative.

You cannot for example move with the intention to stay outside of 8" of model X, you cannot move with the intention to be within the combi rifles "sweet range" and so on.

I need to clarify "intent" too.
Intent under the rules means strictly "you must describe the path the model will follow with detail, without measuring or knowing how far the model will actually go"

For example
"I move the model towards the wall and then touching the wall to the left edge of the wall until it can see out of the wall", regardless of how far the model can move the intention of the models path is described.

"I use cautious moment to this point (places silhouette marker or 25mm counter", were the model is intended to end up is determined regardless of the distance it can actually travel or if it will be out of LoF.

Rules are strict and are so for a very good reason, they are the manual that give the mechanisms players use to play, in contrast with a computer game for example were the engine is hidden, here the engine is open and must be clear.

Wargames are a social experience though two players need to engage and apply the engine the same way in order to participate and have fun in the game, I am not against house rules and players playing the game in their own unique interpretation of the rules, but this is not what this tread is about, it is about clarifying how the rules are supposed to be applied.

So now we come to the word intention outside of the strict definition of the rules, though you must accept that the two rules I mentioned above must apply, no premeasuring and the path taken must be fully described.

"Intention" as it first appeared and is most commonly understood in the forum is an attempt to cut the time needed to play by having both players cooperate in models placement, it is a gentlemen's agreement between the two players to help each other to play the game faster and more enjoyable, yes, strictly out of the rules it is the players responsibility to say were the model will move check LoF from everybody place the model optimally ectr ectr, but those 10 minutes can be spend better elsewhere you can instead ask your opponent for their models LoF towards a position decide were to place your model, say "I move the model parallel to the wall up to here (place marker) with the intention to not be seen by these models" the model moves to its destination and the opponent can help to micro adjust the models final position to achieve its declared intention, that been said if the model need to be half a base back to achieve that it is not really a micro management, the rule comes before "intention" be reasonable with it.

The main question that rises from this is how this works with cutting the pie as it is usually referred to, at what point can the opponent be expected to assist in this regard, as I said earlier the rules are before players intention, if the player declared a move that exposes the model with the intention to be seen by only one model then the model is in this exposed position, as with the first example the opponent can provide their models LoF and help micro-adjusting its final position but if the model cannot achieve to be seen only by that single model from the position the declared path stated for the model, the model cannot take back its declaration, again be reasonable saying a model needs to be a mm forward/ backward to achieve its intended declaration is a small price to pay for the time wasted from a player taking such decision alone, but if the model needs a big adjustment then the placement should not be taken back.

That "intention" is more of a cooperation between players to speed up the game, yes, strictly speaking it is not supported by the rules and is a construct created by the players over the rules but does not change the rules, it does prevent some "gotcha" moments, but does not prevent bad decisions from happening or bad order declarations to be taken back.

In a less formal play environment such as casual play you this intention can be even more lax and simply say "I move my model so far as to reach the end of the wall without been seen by these models and the opponent simply say you were to stop, I can see that work in tournaments too, but strictly speaking it is not how the rules are written, some risk reward in models placement is intended, but I leave it here as an option, it all boils down to how strict the play environment is and how much speed of play is appreciated.

I see lately (by lately more than a year now) another "Intention" been described and this is used to either sidestep that it is not allowed to premeasure or to gain advantage or pie slicing, take back movement, actions or other things unsupported by the rules.

You cannot declare something like "I move to be within 8" of the enemy" that tries to sidestep premeasuring, you cannot declare that the model moves so far as to only see one model and if this is not possible not move because the intention was to only see one model, you cannot alter the chosen move path because it puts the mode in the LoF of a model you did not expect and not asked about, you are not allowed to change the models final position by a big amount because of the orders intention.

Please understand that rules "intention" and the everyday word "Intention" are two different things, they can be combined to live in harmony and speed up play, but the later cannot supersede the former.

 

@psychoticstorm I think thats a good synopsis. The only place I personally dont find an issue with intent is in the pie slicing portion. In our local meta that seems to be the case. In all other regards (coherency rules, ranges, silhouettes) we run it pretty by the book. I think intent for us came about mostly because of model shapes to be honest. A lot of times models have flailing limbs, and for ease of use we would simply say, "Hey cause his arm and gin us weirdly placed, I cant properly put him here and I don't want to bother breaking out the S token, so I will just say my intent is to see X. It has since grew from that to all models for ease of play and quickness.

We also definitely never declare movement distance and THEN move. While it is a rule, I have rarely seen it played. I tried for a little bit but then stopped and went back to sloppy movement.