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.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.

Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.

Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.

Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.

Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.

I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).

Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).

Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.

I have yet to meet a person who says "you can't touch your models when it's not your move phase", and lots of people I've met rotate their tank turrets to face their target in the shooting phase. And I've also played with lots of people who will rotate models that overhang their base and interfere with placement of chargers during the charge phase.

The model profile being able to change turn to turn is silly in the first place, even is you position the tank turret only when it would be permitted to move.



This isn't really on-topic anymore though. As I said, if my opponent declare that they're trying to achieve something, I'll help them achieve it: it's obviously something they had the idea to do and considered of their own volition. That doesn't mean it automatically succeeds, it may not be possible to hide your tank behind that building even though you've declared that you're trying to hide, but I'm willing to bend over and look from my tank's perspective and honestly tell you if I can still see you.
I'm also not playing for my opponent, so the onus is on them to make their own tactical choices during the game. If they want to deep strike within 12" and are concerned about potential interceptor fire, then they can ask me if I have a stratagem to do that, otherwise I'm going to assume they considered the possibility. It's not my job to keep my opponent from making mistakes. I can still volunteer what I'm capable of if I want to volunteer it, but I'm under no obligation to tell you that I can interceptor fire your guys arriving 9.1" away if you don't ask.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.

Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.

Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.

I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).

Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.

I rotate my turrets when I shoot with the unit.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).

Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.

I have yet to meet a person who says "you can't touch your models when it's not your move phase", and lots of people I've met rotate their tank turrets to face their target in the shooting phase. And I've also played with lots of people who will rotate models that overhang their base and interfere with placement of chargers during the charge phase...

That isn't the difficulty. The difficulty is coupling this with antenna-to-antenna LOS to point a gun out from behind an obstacle, draw line of sight from that to shoot something, and then pivot it back afterwards to hide again because there's no clear rule on whether changing the geometry of a model is considered "movement" and whether/when you're allowed to do it.

If you can't clearly do something because of oddity of board or balance of models, etc. Yeah of course we've done intent before. Though we play by the rules sometimes there are issues you need some intent due to limitations and safety you want for your items.

At the end of the day, if you're playing tournament minded folks, you gotta follow the rules closely. If its a casual game, use some level of intent if it seems suspect. Honestly 8th edition is pretty bad with gotcha moments and I felt intent was better and clearer back in say 3rd-4th but that was just me.

Edit: Don't get me started on the terrible LoS for vehicles shooting from random and strange areas is one of my biggest I hate it issues from 8th. I just tend to play accepting that tons of stupid crap happens in game and just accept and use it back when I need to.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
That isn't the difficulty. The difficulty is coupling this with antenna-to-antenna LOS to point a gun out from behind an obstacle, draw line of sight from that to shoot something, and then pivot it back afterwards to hide again because there's no clear rule on whether changing the geometry of a model is considered "movement" and whether/when you're allowed to do it.

From the ruling on drop pod doors, you can deduct that by the rules you are not allowed to modify your model in any way over the course of the game, which makes perfect sense when you think about it. While rotating turrets is immersive and unlikely to grant an advantage, there are tons of ways to exploit this otherwise - there is a 45 minute video on youtube about a necron player explaining all shenanigans you can do with a Canpotek Cryptstalker, from sticking out single legs to shoot from them, using them to screen against enemies by spreading their legs and letting your units pass by withdrawing them, up to free fall-back moves by just retracting one leg to get out of 1". Or tau suits playing peek-a-boo with their guns from behind LoS blocking cover.

I also think it's clear that rotating models mid-turn to gain an advantage isn't ok either. If someone disagrees, start using the good old "pivoting isn't movement" shenanigans from 5th where you could have two vehicles open a shooting corridor for some unit by pivoting and then closing it afterwards.

That said, the whole thread is about playing by intent. Someone taking advantage/giving you an disadvantage because of these is not doing that. If someone tries to pull one of the things described in the previous looks, I'd give them a stern look, would point out how the rules would actually have played out, and that usually settles it. If they are still stubbornly insisting, just let them take the shot. In most cases, it won't matter anyways.

Every other Sunday we get the guys at my house, we kick back and play three or four games. Sometimes we only have 5 or 6 players, sometimes we get a houseful. The same rule always kind of sticks, regardless of who is playing. We try to give each other the benefit of the doubt. If the intent was to move the unit and you forgot that one hellblaster behind that building, sure, put him up there.

if you meant to case a psychic power and you forgot, but you haven't really done anything that it would have affected, sure, go back.

We try to make sure that we get out of the game what we want. And while we all want to win, its more important that we have a good time and enjoy each other's company (and the ribs I make sometimes...man...i can make some ribs...)

i try to remind everyone when they come over, especially the new dudes who get folded into the group:

The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.

 Elbows wrote:
This is why I've never understood why people insist on playing the game with non-like minded people.

1) If you're a tournament player; fine. You're aware of this risk and you've elected to play in a competitive format....so no douchebaggery should come as a surprise to you.
2) If you're playing pick-up games...play them and put up with the nonsense until you find a handful of people you enjoy playing with, players whom you share the same approach and spirit of the game.
3) If you've got a group of friends you enjoy playing with, almost none of this stuff becomes an issue. Everyone is aware of how and why you're playing and it all goes smoothly.

The thing is, reality doesn't work that way.
Most tournament players have lots of experience with the game and tend to be extremely pleasant to play against, because bad sportsmanship and shenanigans will get you kicked out of events and slows down games.
Pick up games are obviously completely luck-based, but the higher your standards towards a fun game are, the more likely you are to be disappointed by finding an opponent this way. There is also the issue of getting stuck with the one guy who was unable to find an opponent due to his behavior.
When playing with friends, you are quite likely to be friends with them not because of how they play WH40k. You might be friends with them because you know them from school/college/work, because you are neighbors, because you also share other hobbies. In addition, people might bring souses, family members or friends of them to the group, which play the game in a different way.

TFG might be hiding in any of the three groups, and - from experience - it's by far the worst when he is part of group 3.
The best chance at avoiding this is to clearly communicate what you are expecting from a game, and find a consensus with your opponent.

Seabass wrote:
The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.

Nails it pretty well.

I think the thing people are getting hung up on is that intent is more about making sure you don't have to spend ten minutes trying to hide a single squad of dudes. Your intent is to put them in cover, out of LoS and if you accidently leave a bayonet sticking out, then obviously that wasn't your intent so it can be ignored.

Basically it smooths the futzing we have to do to get everything "perfect" and lets us get more game in and less micromanaging in. Micromanagement is best left to a simulator, which 40k is definitely not.

Now obviously some places don't do that (see Karol's horror stories about the baby seal clubbing group he's stuck with for example), but considering I've heard it come up in tournament focused podcasts (which I'm having a dang hard time finding at the moment), I'd argue that it's a think we could all get behind as it means more time rolling dice and killing your opponent.

Plus mentioning intent and tripointing, it can be used to clearly clarify what you're doing and why so that neither player is surprised about the "well ahktually" that inevitably pops up when someone doesn't clearly communicate rules.

Still remember the time I got "gotcha'd" by an Eldar player who didn't tell me Melta weapons didn't work on the Avatar of Khaine.

"So strength 8, what will I need to wound?"

"A 7. *trollface grin*"

Yeah, not cool of you Jonathan. Especially when I'm playing Sisters and only had meltas for my special weapons that game.

Good thing the Avatar isn't Repentia proof.

If its a friendly game be friendly.
If its competitive you shouldn't have to point out why someone doing something bad *is bad* even if its because they forgot a rule. Whether that's shooting an avatar with melta, or deploying in 9" and getting intercept stratagemed to death. Learning these things - via gotchas or whatever - is after all part of the game.

But yeah, if someone says "is this out of LOS" and you lie, that's being a bad person. You should say "yes - but obviously if I move it may not be". If someone says "I intend to deploy outside 12" and then you go "hahaha, actually its 11.9", eat stratagem death" - that's being a bad person.

I am 99% sure you can't move a tank turret such as to get LOS and then move it back after firing so its concealed for your opponents turn. It might be "cool" to do so (and effective) but its clearly not in the rules.

ccs wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


Are you saying that you consider it within the rules to move the turret of a tank whenever you want? Have I been playing this wrong? To me, you can move a turret during the movement phase, and I suppose when charging/piling in etc. Adjusting it before or after firing in the shooting phase would, to me, be movement and therefore not permitted.

Flames of War had you point the turret at the target when you shot, but I don't think that exists in 40K.

Yeah, FoW has the turret facing independent of the hull facing so it matters where your turret is pointing, but 40k doesn't have any guidelines for when you can play with your tanks.

I am told that 40K is a permissive rules set. You are permitted to move your model during the movement phase, but not during the shooting phase (unless you have a stratagem I suppose). Moving the turret is movement, especially if its changing something about how the tank interacts with other models (range/LOS).

Models get jostled, etc, but deliberately moving the turret to be able to shoot something and then hide from return fire is a whole other matter to me.

I rotate my turrets when I shoot with the unit.

I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.

Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.

Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.

Where do you stand on the vital matter of pew-pew noises?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Yes and no.

No, your tank isn't hidden just because you say you're trying to hide. That piece of terrain might not be big enough to conceal it, so intent doesn't matter, whether you actually can [and can from the desired position] does.
That said, if you announce that you're trying to hide your tank, I might take a look from my shooter's point of view and tell you if I agree that you're hidden.




As far as "helping your opponent", here's my take on it:
The rules in the codex are open knowledge. I don't expect you to buy a copy of every codex and splatbook to read rules for other people's armies. Thus, if you ask me if I have a given capability, I will answer in good spirit. However, the onus is on you to ask. I won't volunteer that you're making a mistake until after you've committed to it and I've acted on it, at which point I am happy to explain exactly what you did wrong and discuss what could have been done differently.

Yeah, absolutely. There's room to abuse this situation all the time. I've also had opponents pull stuff like, moving a unit to a position, taking a shooting attack with that unit against one of my units, my turn rolls around and I try to target them, and they say "oh I wanted that unit out of LOS."

Typically it takes about 2 seconds to remind the person that either A, they didn't specify their intent clearly, B, what they intended is just not possible, or C, they did something on their turn that forfeited that intent, like making an attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Seabass wrote:
The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.

Nails it pretty well.

I think the thing people are getting hung up on is that intent is more about making sure you don't have to spend ten minutes trying to hide a single squad of dudes. Your intent is to put them in cover, out of LoS and if you accidently leave a bayonet sticking out, then obviously that wasn't your intent so it can be ignored.

Basically it smooths the futzing we have to do to get everything "perfect" and lets us get more game in and less micromanaging in. Micromanagement is best left to a simulator, which 40k is definitely not.

Now obviously some places don't do that (see Karol's horror stories about the baby seal clubbing group he's stuck with for example), but considering I've heard it come up in tournament focused podcasts (which I'm having a dang hard time finding at the moment), I'd argue that it's a think we could all get behind as it means more time rolling dice and killing your opponent.

Plus mentioning intent and tripointing, it can be used to clearly clarify what you're doing and why so that neither player is surprised about the "well ahktually" that inevitably pops up when someone doesn't clearly communicate rules.

Still remember the time I got "gotcha'd" by an Eldar player who didn't tell me Melta weapons didn't work on the Avatar of Khaine.

"So strength 8, what will I need to wound?"

"A 7. *trollface grin*"

Yeah, not cool of you Jonathan. Especially when I'm playing Sisters and only had meltas for my special weapons that game.

Good thing the Avatar isn't Repentia proof.

Yeah, I feel like there's some space marine character (salamander man?) who has or had a similar immunity and I have had an opponent be like "Haha, you didn't memorize the stats and abilities of Space Marine Special Boy Number 5,324, jokes on you!"

Seabass wrote:The objective of the game is to win, but the point is to have fun.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
In my opinion, actually winning the game is a secondary experience to having fun, hence why intent is more important than execution? Does this mean things that are blatantly not going to be possible can be, because of intent? No, of course not - but does it mean I'm not going to say I can shoot at those guardsmen because I can see their bayonet? Absolutely.

Catulle wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I do as well, not for any rules advantage, but just because it's fun to point a twin accelerator cannon at something it's about to unload on from six inches away.

Love this thread. Great to see most people play this way.

Where do you stand on the vital matter of pew-pew noises?

Do crunching noises count when you kill stuff with a deff rolla?

So it sounds like there's varying "degrees" of playing intent here, which is I suppose to be expected.

I am surprised to see most people play this way, and pleasantly so.

The Line of Sight problem is a big one. Take, for example, the Keeper of Secrets. It's at least 6" wide, but the body is probably only 2" wide. The rest of the inches comes from the gigantic claws outstretched to either side.

What do you do if someone places a Keeper behind a 5" wide piece of terrain? No matter how they place it, they'll have at least .5" of claw sticking out one side or the other. Can they still claim to be hiding out of LOS with intent?

I'd say sure, but I'm biased (even though I love tanks, I love Keepers as well). The reason is that the keeper's claws can always be dropped ('in real life' i.e. the game universe). She doesn't have to be holding them quite so wide.

What do you all think? And what implications might this have for 9th with the abandonment of TLOS?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So it sounds like there's varying "degrees" of playing intent here, which is I suppose to be expected.

I am surprised to see most people play this way, and pleasantly so.

The Line of Sight problem is a big one. Take, for example, the Keeper of Secrets. It's at least 6" wide, but the body is probably only 2" wide. The rest of the inches comes from the gigantic claws outstretched to either side.

What do you do if someone places a Keeper behind a 5" wide piece of terrain? No matter how they place it, they'll have at least .5" of claw sticking out one side or the other. Can they still claim to be hiding out of LOS with intent?

I'd say sure, but I'm biased (even though I love tanks, I love Keepers as well). The reason is that the keeper's claws can always be dropped ('in real life' i.e. the game universe). She doesn't have to be holding them quite so wide.

What do you all think? And what implications might this have for 9th with the abandonment of TLOS?

For stuff like the Keeper of Secrets and back banners and stuff, if its an opponent I don't play regularly, I try to clarify what counts as fair game for drawing LOS before the game starts. As for claiming being out of LOS, in a game I would normally declare which unit I'm moving and say what I'm doing with it: "I'm moving this unit up to hug this wall so that I get a cover save and you're tank can't see me", I would expect my opponent to object if they didn't think this was reasonable: "I don't think that wall gives you a cover save/ is high enough to hide behind" once I've moved the unit check the LOS of sight and ask: "are you happy these guys are not in LOS of that tank?" if yes, select next unit, if no, adjust the positioning of the unit until we're both happy with it blocking LOS. Usually only takes a few seconds, and we're both clear with the situation: the unit either does or doesn't get a cover save and either is or isn't in LOS as discussed. It might be a case of "I know these claws/banner/sword etc are sticking out but for the purposes of the game its out of LOS."

Trying to put a model that is clearly much larger than the intervening terrain and saying "I intend for this to be out of LOS" isn't "playing with intent" that's trying to be gamey at best, and cheating at worst.

In reference to tripoint gotchas, the whole point of stating your intent is to reduce and eliminate gotchas where possible. Tripoint shouldn't be a gotcha, its just a movement choice, like moving to be out of LOS or in cover:

"I'm piling in like this to trap this model and prevent you from falling back"

Expected response form my opponent would be "yup, he's trapped" or "i think i can slip through this gap" if the second response, adjust my positioning so that the target is trapped, or accept that it isn't trapped because I can't move the model where it needs to be for whatever reason.

Equally, moving might be "I'm moving this unit forward so they can get LOS on that monster that's hidning behind the building" etc.

I did this at the beginning of 8th, but almost every single time I gave someone leeway with what I could shoot, they would turn around later in the game and try to shoot the exhaust of a battlewagon, the banner on a nob or a tentacle sticking out of a plague marine's belly and spin up some fluff about how it was totally different from shooting wings.

So I defaulted back to what the rules say and shoot from and to every part of every model. If your wings make it impossible for the model to hide, then so be it.
If there is a terrain piece that could theoretically hide your winged monster, don't bother fiddling with it for hours, I will just let you have it. But it needs to be large enough to hide every single piece of your model.

Sadly that would mean the keeper could not be out of LOS there.


Theres a certain point were you need just to accept the silhouette GW gives their miniatures. Thats why one should not have a bloodthirster without wings or if he makes one without them, then have the wings to check LOS for gameplay purposes.

If you don't play that way, you have the problem of kneeling wraithlords and similar modeling for advantage stuff.

We play that a miniature can have the form that you want. It is better if its respect the original silouette in some way, but if not, it is just played that way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So it sounds like there's varying "degrees" of playing intent here, which is I suppose to be expected.

I am surprised to see most people play this way, and pleasantly so.

The Line of Sight problem is a big one. Take, for example, the Keeper of Secrets. It's at least 6" wide, but the body is probably only 2" wide. The rest of the inches comes from the gigantic claws outstretched to either side.

What do you do if someone places a Keeper behind a 5" wide piece of terrain? No matter how they place it, they'll have at least .5" of claw sticking out one side or the other. Can they still claim to be hiding out of LOS with intent?

I'd say sure, but I'm biased (even though I love tanks, I love Keepers as well). The reason is that the keeper's claws can always be dropped ('in real life' i.e. the game universe). She doesn't have to be holding them quite so wide.

What do you all think? And what implications might this have for 9th with the abandonment of TLOS?

If it were up to me the rule of "vestigal bits don't count" which Fantasy 8th where only the "main body" counts for LoS. My group kind of plays like that. I don't think we count it as LOS if its an antenna or a toe, I've never really paid attention.

Aash wrote:
For stuff like the Keeper of Secrets and back banners and stuff, if its an opponent I don't play regularly, I try to clarify what counts as fair game for drawing LOS before the game starts. As for claiming being out of LOS, in a game I would normally declare which unit I'm moving and say what I'm doing with it: "I'm moving this unit up to hug this wall so that I get a cover save and you're tank cant see me", I would expect my opponent to object if they didn't think this was reasonable: "I don't think that wall gives you a cover save/ is high enough to hide behind" once I've moved the unit check the LOS of sight and ask: "are you happy these guys are not in LOS of that tank?" if yes, select next unit, if no, adjust the positioning of the unit until we're both happy with it blocking LOS. Usually only takes a few seconds, and we're both clear with the situation: the unit either does or doesn't get a cover save and either is or isn't in LOS as discussed. It might be a case of "I know these claws/banner/sword etc are sticking out but for the purposes of the game its out of LOS."

That is you opponent being nice though. I know a fair amount of players who would tell you that they will be checking LOS on their turn and to do the best you can, and they have every right to play that way.

Trying to put a model that is clearly much larger than the intervening terrain and saying "I intend for this to be out of LOS" isn't "playing with intent" that's trying to be gamey at best, and cheating at worst.

100% agree, it's just being gamey.

I doubt we will see the abandonment of TLOS but I am hopeful that they at least add a rule whereby wings, weapons, banners, and antennae/auxiliary bits of a model are not targetable.

All we know is that there will be a "LOS blocking" rule that you can agree to add to a ruin but we do not know the specifics of how that works. For example, does it prevent a model from being seen THROUGH a terrain piece, or both THROUGH and AROUND, as in the example with the KOS you just gave?

I understand the "accepting the silhouette GW gives their models" point. I do think that that's drawing model design a bit too close to rules, though - do GW themselves consider model design when pointing units? Would a Battlewagon be cheaper if it had radio aerials? Are Baneblades priced assuming you use the radio aerials in the kit? I've left them off of mine.

Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.

the_scotsman wrote:
I doubt we will see the abandonment of TLOS but I am hopeful that they at least add a rule whereby wings, weapons, banners, and antennae/auxiliary bits of a model are not targetable.

I hope they don't. I really don't want all those "does X count as hull?" arguments back, and there is no way to clarify this rule properly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I understand the "accepting the silhouette GW gives their models" point. I do think that that's drawing model design a bit too close to rules, though - do GW themselves consider model design when pointing units? Would a Battlewagon be cheaper if it had radio aerials? Are Baneblades priced assuming you use the radio aerials in the kit? I've left them off of mine.

Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.

Yeah-if your opponent refuses to tell you if their unit currently has LoS to yours, they're being unsportsmanlike.

If you're playing a competitive game, you don't need to warn your opponent about everything you can do-but if they explicitly ask "Can you do this?" you need to answer honestly.

That is you opponent being nice though. I know a fair amount of players who would tell you that they will be checking LOS on their turn and to do the best you can, and they have every right to play that way.

I'm lucky enough that the people I usually play with don't take this approach, and if I do play someone like that, I'll go along with it if that's what they prefer, but wouldn't be seeking them out for another game any time soon.

That being said I don't play at big tournaments, the only competitive games I play are at my FLGS with the same group I usually play with, and those games are approached in the same way as any other we play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.

I don't play that way either, but I know from one player who reasoned that they don't want to go back-and-forth with every unit until everything is perfectly hidden. The general is supposed to take care of that, and if the general doesn't move their troops properly, they die.

Yeah, I don't know if I would be super jazzed about allowing someone with a 100% melee army to pretend their mini is way, way smaller than it actually is when determining whether I can shoot at it at all before it gets into combat with me. I'd probably feel the same way about someone who modeled their KoS crouching down with its arms in or lying down on the ground so they could do the same thing.

I do wish there was some middle ground between "cannot shoot thing at all" and "can shoot thing with complete total effectiveness" we could maybe compromise on in situations like this :/

 Jidmah wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Conversely, I disagree with opponents who say "we'll see in my shooting phase". That seems to be anti-intent play, and that's the attitude I suppose I was complaining about.

I don't play that way either, but I know from one player who reasoned that they don't want to go back-and-forth with every unit until everything is perfectly hidden. The general is supposed to take care of that, and if the general doesn't move their troops properly, they die.

Did you tell him that the first Private who tells a General "Sorry, sir, I can't duck behind a barricade unless you explicitly instruct me to" is getting fired?

In war, many many many many many more battles are lost because the troops acted in a way the General didn't anticipate in an effort to survive, rather than because the General screwed up positioning them.

Or, to put it more simply: in the heat of intense short-range combat, a tank company commander is not going to have time to micromanage the facing, speed, and target of every single other tank in his company. He's going to trust the pre-existing crew training and coordination apparatuses within the platoons themselves....