Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play" they always bring back bugbears of earlier editions. Then I think about my worst games of 8th and how much pain they caused me that I didn't feel in my worst games in earlier editions and I came to a realization: it may not be the older edition's rules that I miss, but rather an old thing my playgroups and I used to do called "playing by intent."

What "playing by intent" is is hard to define with specifics, but generally it meant that when you took an action, you declared your intent and reasons, and your opponent could generally be expected to respect that intent. If I had to define it more accurately, I'd say:

me wrote:Intent Driven Play is gameplay of a wargame with the understanding that the models, while static and lifeless, are actively maneuvering and taking actions on the battlefield. This means that declarations of plausible intent when moving, shooting, etc. with a miniature should be generally respected, and worrying over small details should be done only in cases where there is any doubt as to the plausibility of an action. This serves to speed up play, make the game more gentlemanly and sporting, and facilitate communication and interaction.

Consider the following example:

Player A deploys (or moves!) his Leman Russ behind a building. "My intent is to be hidden from Line of Sight from those units."
Player B: "Well, I can see your radio aerial and a bit of your fender, but that's alright; let's not fiddle over millimetres. Just know that I can move before I shoot with this Predator Annihilator here and will probably see you."
Player A moves or deploys a less important unit. "That's fine; moving degrades your firepower. Thanks for the warning though! Now, these Guardsmen are intended to be more than 1" away from the edge of this woods inside it, but the trees mean that the Heavy Weapon Team base hangs out a bit..."
Player B: "That's fine; it's not a static model in 'real life'; we'll go ahead and declare them out of line of sight. Just remember you can't see, either, except six inches out."
etc. etc.

In that example, you could see two cases of intent that would dramatically impact the game. In 8th edition, that fender and radio aerial would be mercilessly shot at (it feels like) as well as being shot from (it also feels like). A heavy weapons team hanging out the edge of a wood would be an obvious target (though woods don't do what they used to do anyways, but I hope you see the point).

There's nothing in 8th preventing intent-driven play, exactly. You could still declare your intent as you do things. But in my experience this seems much less respected. Do you think this is a result of rules shift, gamer cultural shift, or some other unidentified factor? As a player of other games, I generally don't see 'playing by intent' there either anymore, even in games that historically have embraced it culturally in my experience(e.g. Flames of War). I suppose I'm inclined to think this is a cultural shift, then.

With 9th Edition steaming towards us at full speed and some evidence of changes that will require interacting with an opponent in a 'play-by-intent' manner (e.g. terrain obscuration), what do you all think?

I think this is insane.

Oh yeah. Absolutely. It is 100% the norm in my group to declare stuff like "I am trying to hide from your unit, that is why my unit is not shooting you" and then someone will stoop down, look and go "OK, I can still see a bit of you from here, but you could shift slightly to one side and be out of LOS for sure unless I move"

Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

All the time unless its really egregious and in those cases our group is usually good enough to stand by their mistake even if you offer them a do-over.

You treat people fairly and they play fairly. Shocking, I know.

Martel732 wrote:
I think this is insane.

lol what?

Thats the best way to play IMO, you don't have to feth around trying to hide stuff from LoS.
Playing by intent seems to be integral to Infinity's gameplay and it makes the games much smoother and you dont run the risk of havign any arguments.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?

Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online.

It is very much a thing, which helps everyone present to both have a better game and a nicer experience in general. I do that pretty much all the time in war games, board games and rpg's as well.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

Do you really need to ask this having been on this forum for more than presumably 5 seconds?

Half the responses to this question are 100% going to be from people who claim to sit across from their opponent in stone-faced silence, exploiting every possible mistake and loophole allowed to them in the exact letter of the rules, gloriously FEASTING on every instant of blessed victory that they glean from destroying their enemy in the contest of wits and intellect in the game they consider to be designed by apes with a ruleset they could improve on in their sleep that they spend a large fraction of their time complaining about online.

Well that's just incorrect because those players don't actually play 8th because it's so terrible, they just come on here to tell us how we're all wrong.

If its something thats not obvious then yes we play Intent, this is normal. Even at LVO on stream they declare they intent a lot.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

Yeah, it would be nice, but I know the 40K crowd in the US.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

I know this is flippant, but hearing that anecdote I'd just rotate the turret back to where it was, or somewhere even more advantageous. The rules don't say you can't, so if someone really wants to be a dick about it, why not?

Yes.

I do it and see it done all the time.


Obviously you cannot use intend to hide a Leman Russ where it cannot physically be hidden, but if it can, declaring intend (and getting confirmation from your opponent) should be fine and is (in my experience) common practice.


Other common examples:

Player 1: I deepstrike my guys 12.1" away from your Centurions, so they cannot Auspex Scan.
Player 2: Ok, great.
Player 1 puts down his models about 12" from the Centurions. .... Obviously this isn't to abuse the intent and place the models 3" from the Centurions now. If that happened, Player 2 should point that out. But neither can/should Player 2 just "gotcha-Auspex-Scan" if a random model ends up 11.8" away due to imprecise placing, table bumps, etc..

Player 1: I I move my Genestealers over here and tri-point your guardsman, so they cannot fall back.
Player 2: *checks if it is possible the Genestealers can do that* ... Ok, that Guardsman is tripointed.
... Game goes on, dice roll into models, scrawny tournament table is wobbly, etc..,etc.. Genestealer might fall over on his tiny 25mm base.., etc.. No issue, because intent was clarified that the Guardsman is tripointed.

Etc...

Playing by shared intent is a great way of playing with others and avoiding rules arguments.

Play by intent is certainly the norm in other wargames I play, such as Warmachine and L'Art de la Guerre. It makes things much easier so long as you accept that your intent will not always honored: sometimes it is not possible to be both in the terrain and out of range of the enemy model. The games are even played this way at the highest level of competition, and not just casually.

In order for this style of play to work best the game should have both pre-measuring and abstracted model placement rules. 40K has the former, but lacks the latter especially in regards to terrain. The line of sight rules in 40K make it difficult to cleanly and easily use the terrain, and a lot of what you get out of terrain depends on the specific rules you are using (40K has quite the jumble of complicated rules regarding terrain) and the attitude of your opponent. It is certainly possible to play 40K in an intent-driven manner, but it is never going to be as clinical as those other games.

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

I know this is flippant, but hearing that anecdote I'd just rotate the turret back to where it was, or somewhere even more advantageous. The rules don't say you can't, so if someone really wants to be a dick about it, why not?

That just sounds like a way to start an argument. The other player genuinely didn't understand why I was so aghast about what he said.

I've not really done it in the past, but after hearing some rather high end players talk about the idea I've warmed up to it. One of the big advantages is you're walking yourself through the turn with what you're doing amd why so everyone knows what's going on, and it prevents the "no, I can totally see his small toe!" arguements in the game.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Do people not do this?

EDIT: yes I get some people don't, but honestly this seems like something that I do and manage with opponents in pretty much all of my games.

Well, I moved right at the beginning of 8th so it could also be an area-cultural thing as well, but I've literally had the following interaction:

Player A: "I'm moving this tank so you can't see it from here, but it can see this other enemy unit"
Player B: *checks* "Yep, sounds good."
Player A does some other stuff - later in the shooting phase, player A traverses the tank's turret to thematically engage said enemy model. The game goes on.
Player B: "Okay, now I'm shooting your tank."
Player A: "What? I thought we agreed it was out of LOS from there."
Player B: "Well, you turned the turret and I can see the muzzle brake now."

The whole point of playing by intent, in my opinion, is to allow thematic actions (like turrets traversing) without actively harming the gameplay experience (an enemy getting a firing solution based on a single muzzle brake and destroying a whole tank). Yet this doesn't seem to be respected as much in 8th, though again it could be an area thing.

Yeah, it would be nice, but I know the 40K crowd in the US.

This is as silly to me as everyone who says they know what "chinese people are like" or "what women are like" or whatever.

I think when there's...oh...100 million of a particular category of people, you do not know something "about that group of people".

I can tell you what the 40k scene in the greater boston area is like, but I have to separate it by the various stores...

It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.

When people talk about 8th being "streamlined" and "faster to play"

I don't think anyone's accused 8th of being "faster to play" for a very long time now, but to your question - my group plays by intent a lot of the time.

I get it - if you're in a major GT and your opponent wants to just declare his intent, you might want to make him show you he can do it. Make him position the models correctly, etc. But in a friendly game night? Playing by intent can be pretty helpful in moving the game along and not getting bogged down in things like whether or not that Russ can see the tip of the shoulder pad of that marine model from the angle it's currently parked at, etc etc.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.

Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.

Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.

Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.

Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.

I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.

Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.

Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.

I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.

I mean, come on down I guess. Gotchas are a pretty universally despised moment where I am. Tripointing is still a thing, but it's usually framed as 'my intent is to prevent this unit from falling back by piling in like this'.

My crew does this, and always has. But again, we never drive five hours out of our way and spend hundreds of dollars on on travel and accommodations to play in organized tournaments with strangers either.

I don't agree with many of the changes tournament players suggest for the sake of the game, and we frequently lock horns, but I have come to understand them and the limitations within which they must play in order to be able to play the game the way they enjoy it.

RAI for home, friends and fun.
RAW for public play with strangers as if the game was a sport.

It makes me happy to see so many folks on this post being like "Doesn't everyone do this?"

It's not always the case, lord knows, but some of us are lucky right now to be in game groups where this sort of thing is just the norm and not some weird abstraction.

That being said: In our group this sort of thing often comes into play with hills. Hills or slopes can be the bane of miniatures, but our local store has some really nice thematic hill terrain that we use a lot. I can't tell you how often a model either slides around a bit or simply can't stay exactly where you want it to be.

We have learned to just sort of talk to our opponent about where our models are "supposed" to be in these situations, and we move on.

Playing by intent is how I’ve always played, and I’ve never run into issues with it in 8th or prior editions. It’s only on this forum that I’ve ever come across anyone not doing this.

Well, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear this and immensely disappointed in my local area, then.

The example I gave upthread of a play-by-intent failure is the one that stands out the most to me, but there have been others.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Consider the following example:

Yes, in two cases -
Wobbly models - if the player wants to put a model somewhere but doesn't want to risk damaging it then it's fine to put it nearby, they can always hold it in place if we want to check LoS later on.
'Can you see it' - if someone wanted to place a model out of LoS they could ask their opponent if it could be seen (ignoring aerials, banners, etc as per the rules). It could slow things down so we tried not to go overboard on it.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not silly from my experiences. But yes, I suppose you are right in this way. I'm very tired of "gotcha" moments, which is a big reason I despise tripoint.

Discussing intent exists to prevent "gotcha" moments.

Tripointing existed to deal with an edition that was making melee next to impossible.

I get that, but these opponents WANT gotcha moments so they can win. Usually when I try to do the intent thing, I'm told to make it happen on the board or it doesn't count.

God , poor you for being stuck with players like that.