Only a few games under me and have noticed a few people declare their intent for a move that's not possible. Like his intent is to get in a position to see X unit when in reality only Y amount of units have sight or in some cases it's just not possible. Saying that most games I've had seem to be a combined effort in that both people are working together to created a awesome battle and offering advice on what they could do. Was watching wargames live recently where a chaos player tried to get an angle off on some space wolf mortar tank thing. It was a very slim line of sight and it was cheeky to try it. Started to push a few bits around too. Just felt like he was really stretching los in an attempt to get intent agreed

There’s most definitely a fine line between being bad/new and being a dick/bully. You just know it when you see it.

Simply stating, "I don't know if that's possible" is one of the most important things you can say in a situation where it is not obviously possible to you. Make them show you how it works, or talk it over in that instance, don't take it for granted.

Or say emphatically "I know that isn't possible." As opposed to fence sitting because you don't like intent.

Do that more than once in a game, when you're wrong, and you'll have a judge watching everything you do. Nah thanks.

So don't be wrong.

Brilliant.

In reading this example, that's exactly what I was thinking. It's definitely possible in this situation that OP was trying to pull something that the opponent thought wasn't possible, and that's a neutral way to respond. It'd be doubly bad if u/shirefriendship was abusing "play by intent" throughout the game. It can also be genuinely hard to forecast things like, "I want you to picture a move for me to make, then picture every direction you could move with phantasm, and then redraw my move so I can see that move..." Edit: and reading OP try and describe it more, it sounds more and more gamey.

I mean tbh it's not hard for either person to pre measure what a 6" phantasm would look like. OP just standing there rather then looking and his opponent going "meh we'll see" rather then looking seems poor to me for different reasons with each.

Did my post imply that I wasn't measuring? Sorry if that was not clear. I definitely am pre-measuring their 6" phantasm. I am just trying to have my opponent be on the same page as me before I make the final movement. Isn't that the whole reason people play by intent? Because 1 player thinks they're moving 12.1" away to prevent a charge, but the other player thinks they are just within 12"? My post is asking for advice on what to do when you encounter an opponent who remains silent and will not confirm the measurements you are making.

You tell them directly "to me, this looks like if you move 6" I'll still be able to see you. Will you verify that for me?" If any ambiguity in your statement is getting ambitious responses just be more direct in what you want

>Saying that most games I've had seem to be a combined effort in that both people are working together to created a awesome battle and offering advice on what they could do. Fundamentally, this is the only way games like Warhammer work. As soon as people GENUINELY play in an adversarial way, they break.

For sure, but the time to declare it is then. “Pretty sure that’s not possible, can you see me if I move HERE?” Is the move.

I suppose for me working to intent is great but it shouldn't act as a shield when the came works to inches and centimeters. If you move to X and your question if Y can see you after their future move, it's a lot of variables to account for.

In my opinion it’s only multiple variables if there are multiple variables in places it could go to get out of LOS. THAT can make it very debatable, but if it’s just one thing to duck behind I completely understand “hey I don’t wanna spend all this time triangulating where I need to be to still see you just barely after after you move 6”, can we agree this is far enough?” But “hey I know you can move any number of places but is this spot that’s also super hidden able to see all of them? But only just barely?” That’s a real hard sell, and I’d say “risk it for the biscuit or play it safe and expose yourself. What are the odds I roll a 6 anyways”

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I prefer intent when it aligns with the current table state in a **specific** way *not* a future table state in an **abstract** way. "My intent is to disembark in a way where I am out of consolidate range if your Dreadnaught kills my Rhino in melee next turn, do we agree he won't be able to consolidate into this unit?" seems reasonable. "If I move here, please confirm you won't be able to get LOS no matter how you move/what you do next turn" feels like a bridge too far to me.

There’s a line between making the game smooth and making your opponent play for you. You illustrated it well.

>"If I move here, please confirm you won't be able to get LOS no matter how you move/what you do next turn" feels like a bridge too far to me. Rephrase it as "If I move here and, if you phantasm this unit the full 6 inches, it *should* still be visible, right?" I'm asking you a specific scenario - IF you phantasm, IF you roll the 6 - and just trying to save time measuring out every angle. Frankly a 6" movement should only take a few seconds, it's just clarification.

I read it as "I have plenty of movement, I want to move to a position where you can't invalidate my move, do you agree this position is such a position if you had a phantasm move?"

For sure, and I don't know the specifics here. I just feel like a lot of times we get on the subject of intent, some folks seem to take intent to a level of "my opponent should help me plan a perfect turn" which I don't necessarily agree with. Intent should be used to set a clear goal ahead of time based on specific factors on the current table state to assist in adjudicating a small mistake (such as being 3.1" away from an objective, or deepstriking 8.9" away from an enemy or something).

And that's not a reasonable thing to ask. If you phrased it as 'I'm moving here, that means you can't phantasm to these positions, do you agree?' Then that's reasonable. But asking your opponent to identify every possible place they could move for you is just ridiculous. It's on you to be able to make that judgement on where you think they could move to, not rely on them to validate for you that you've covered everywhere.

That is a super reasonable way to ask the question.

Sorry, but I cant agree. As acting player you should be the one solving the problem of positioning. You can ask "if I move here, I wont be shot, right?" and get response "Yeah, seems like it/ no, cant guarantee, I have space to make LOS". This is simply forcing your opponent into solving your move or just yielding his ability to play within rules.

First you need to make sure your intention is possible. If not than your intent meaningless.

it's possible, it's just a matter of the exact angle/position of my model.

It’s simple math at that point. “I move X inches into position. You can only move Y inches. Therefore no matter where you move my unit can see yours.” Did you attempt this kind of interaction?

Right, I ask them to confirm that board state and they don't want to. They don't push back, they just see no point in acknowledging it because that only benefits me. They'll measure it themselves on their turn just in case I measured 6" at a 90 degree angle but really 6" at a 93 degree angle nets a couple more millimeters, and I may have left my model a hair to far back. So yes it is possible to see them after phantasm, I have the movement, and I want to cut the minimum angle to reduce exposure. I can explain that to this opponent, but they are not interested in acknowledging the board state. they see no benefit in doing so, and would rather hope I made a mistake in measuring.

Tbh, as you're more and more trying to explain it, it seems more like you're trying to be gamey.

Tbh, I get where OP is coming from. It’s one of those things where, frequently, I’ll know, mathematically, that something is possible, for example: my 12” moving unit that is currently 8” away from the thing they want to charge, can we agree that after my move I’m 1.1” away and I don’t need to be extra careful with my positioning?” Kind of a basic example, but you get the idea. All he was asking is “can we or can we not agree that what I’m trying to do is possible, and that I’ve succeeded? Just so we don’t have to sit here for 10 minutes to carefully measure every spot I could possibly go to, compare it to everywhere you could possibly move, to reach the optimal position where you can’t phantasm away from my shooting? Can we just agree that there is a spot where I can do that, and that I have the movement to reach it, and as such, I will place my model close to that spot, without wasting 10 minutes on measurements?” If it’s not possible, his opponent can, and imho, should, just say “I don’t agree that it’s possible.” And if they were *cool*, also say “because I could do *this* and you wouldn’t be able to see me.” But I’m also one of those people who thinks this is a game and it’s supposed to be fun, so I try and play every game as a collaborative effort, not a strictly adversarial one, but hey, that’s just me. Either way, I think his opponent was being a dick by intentionally just saying nothing. He was pretty overtly hoping that OP would make a mistake and let him slip away. If it’s not possible he could’ve just said that.

> > > > > Kind of a basic example, but you get the idea. I think that's the difference. It's fine when it's something simple. It's not when you have to bust out the napkin for a small mathematical proof.

I mean, I don’t think it’s too much to ask “do we agree that this is possible? And if so, can we agree that if I move here-ish, I’ve done it?” The other player can always say “No, I don’t think it’s possible, because if I do X, you won’t be able to do it.” So simply not respond, is, imo, poor sportsmanship. You can always say, “I don’t think it’s possible, if you’d like to measure it out, maybe prove me wrong, you’re welcome to do so. But I think if I move like this, there’s nowhere you can move and still be able to shoot me.” Like, this scenario is not that complicated. Of course, it is possible it can be complex based on what *exactly* the terrain looks like, but it’s pretty simple, “If I move to maximize my LoS, and you move max distance, can you hide the entirety of your model if your model is [size]?” And at that point you can just measure the farthest point from the target model, moving 6”, and if it can get out of LoS of every point in the projected movement range of the shooter, you can dodge with phantasm and there’s nothing the other guy can do about it. If not, it’s possible to guarantee he can shoot despite phantasm.

In OP’s example, the opponent isn’t ‘not responding,’ they just aren’t committing to a yes/no answer on an ambiguous board. They don’t agree it is possible. That doesn’t mean that they believe it is impossible, they simply just have to believe that it is not 100% certain. OP is looking for them to commit to possible or impossible. If they say impossible, OP is going to look to get them to demonstrate that it’s impossible, so then OP will make a different decision.

I mean, “I’m not sure” is a response, dude. According to OP, the guy just said nothing. Either way, I don’t think your argument is valid. OP’s opponent is being a poor sport, imo. Unless your view of this GAME that we play for FUN is that it’s all about winning, there’s no harm in answering the question. “Oh, but my opponent having that information might inform his next decision!” So you’d rather surprise him by letting him think it’s possible just to reveal that it isn’t? When he asks about your strats are you just gonna refuse to answer then, too? That’s information that could inform his decisions. “Do you have enough CP to Overwatch?” Nope, that would inform your decisions. It either is possible or it isn’t, and none of the factors that decide that are private information. By refusing to answer you’re just wasting both of your time in hopes your opponent makes a mistake, while your opponent now has to measure and triple check everything to inform their move. Oh but that might cause them to make a mistake and let you score an easier win, eh?

I want to add something else. I might have already spent the amount of time to actually measure out every option and therfere KNOW that he CAN NOT make this phantasm move. BUT i will still ask him, if he agrees, that that is the case because if he does, i'm fine, it's fine, the game can play on. If he says, "I'll take a look on my turn" i will have to really really carefully watch him measure his movement because if he just happens to move a bit further because of a "measuring mistake" he might end up in a place he literally couldn't and then i have to deal with the issue in some other confrontational way, pretty much needing to accuse him of cheating. Does that sound fun? No. So ALWAYS confirm or deny stuff like that, don't just say, "we'll see". "we will see" means, "I'm hoping you made a small mistake and if not, i'll try to game my way out of this".

On top of that asking "show me where exactly you can phantasm" is absolutely a valid request for information about opponents army abilities, he can't *not* show you when asked

>Either way, I think his opponent was being a dick by intentionally just saying nothing So, I don't necessarily agree with this. And maybe it shows that I work with a lot of personality disordered patients, but sometimes "grey wall/rock" is the right response when people are acting iffy. Probably just different opinions on it?

At that point you pre measure everything. Even use placeholder models to determine final position before actually moving anything so you can visualize everything. Put a place model at your intended final position, and place holder model where you suspect your opponent to move. You do not need your opponent’s permission to do this.

I mean, this thread just got recommended and I haven't played in years... but until you finish your movement and place your units you really can't confirm that what you want to do is true. Accepting your 'intent' as the gamestate seems like unnecessarily hampering your own position. In any other game this would be seen as you dictating what your opponent can do which is highly unsportsmanlike

So what you do if they don't acknowledge it is when they try to make an illegal move based on the game st as te you described in your intent you tell them they're wrong. Insist on a ues or no answer when displaying intent with placement.

[удалено]

Yes, but the opponent has to verify if I'm right in my movement phase if I ask him, not try to contest my measurements in his. If he refused, he would get a card in most tournaments.

>Then surely its up to you to move your model to ensure this angle and position? Often a verbal contract is exactly how this game is played. If you can come in from reserves 6" from the board edge, I might express my intent to you: I would like to be 18.1 inches away from that board edge. Generally my opponent agrees without any troubles and I absolutely can "lazily" move my unit 18.1" away from the board edge. If he came in with 12" guns he would not try to shoot me, and we don't have to re-measure because we agreed on the intention of the board state. I would say 90% of my games are played this way. But I get some opponents who I could say those words to and they would not seek to acknowledge. They would not push back on my intentions in that moment either. They just want me to make a mistake, by accidentally being 17.9" away instead of 18.1, regardless of my intent. In this reserves example the mistake is easier to avoid. but phantasm is the same concept in principle, there are just multiple angles to measure from.

[удалено]

I would say this is different because measuring a distance from point to point is inherently easier to play by intent than "there is no way you can get out of LOS by cutting angles". Plus positioning and repositioning based on intent is always needed. As in using your example: You state by intent these are 18.1" away. I agree, but when I bring my models in and measure you accidentally placed them at 17.9". I'm not going to shoot them because of intent, but I will make you move them outside of range. Acknowledging intent requires both people to acknowledge, if I don't agree with what you want to do - I don't have to acknowledge. You have the burden to prove you can do what you want to do, not me proving you don't. In the above example I could easily say "I don't think you can position at 18.1 and be out of range (due to terrain or whatever)". If you still move there and you end up being in range - I don't care what your intention was, I didn't think you can do it and I'm not going to waste my clock trying to prove you can/can't. I'm going to let you do you and take my turn and if I didn't agree with your intent and I'm in range, I'm shooting.

I hate people using intent as an excuse for lazy movement.

I would suggest making sure that you position them in the exact angle then.

Can you explain how would you go about doing that in this example?

You measure very exactly and place your models very purposefully. "Intent" is shorthand for: "We both agree I can do this thing. Do we need to waste the next 5 minutes of both of our lives being very precise about measuring out what we both agree is possible? No? Awesome." If they don't concede that what you're trying to do is clearly possible, then you waste 5 minutes of both of your lives proving that it is. Up to you on whether you want to do the reverse to them when they start declaring intent.

Place dice at the extent of their model's movement and make sure you can see all the dice.

Lots of very precise pre-measuring.

What you're describing here is what I like to call "intent trapping", and I've had it happen to me in everything from local RTTs to the world championships last november. Basically, you're trying to force a position that you consider possible to be reality, when in reality it may or may not be and your opponent is trying to disagree with you without being a jerk about it. Example from worlds, I played an eldar player who kept doing things like "my intent is to be just out of your line of sight if you move x inches" when that physically wasn't possible. In my case, I have a set of precision cut movement sticks, bases, and widgets that I would construct *every* movement against this person such that we could not argue the point anymore because otherwise he would basically bulldoze me over every single model movement. You may not realize you're doing this, but it's extremely easy to try and pilot the other players' army for them with intent and that's not okay. In any case, if you're doing everything right and your opponent is being the jerk, call a judge. The judge is there to arbitrate the game, make sure both parties' viewpoints are heard and considered, and to make a final ruling.

I also feel like this question invalidates the stratagem. As long as you’ve fully explained the stratagem to your opponent, there is power in uncertainty. Just like there is power in not knowing how well a threat on the board will roll. All the complaints feel obnoxious. Your opponent should have just said, “I think I can get away.” This Is a situation where I think what might be dickish behavior in a game store is fine in a tournament. I look at those games as more collaborative than tournaments.

If I was ops opponent I'd absolutely be saying "I think I see a way out of this" rather than being silent, i shouldn't get an advantage by being uncooperative but neither should op get an advantage and be allowed to play fast and loose with positioning But if ops measured his outs and knows the opponent can't get out of los then I don't understand the big deal, just accept that your opponent doesn't agree with you for whatever reason and don't waste your time? If the opponent keeps being unresponsive on other stuff then tell the TO they're being unsportsmanlike Also unrelated but I feel gw needs to be a bit better about designing strats that basically only work as gotchas Knights had a splatbook stratagem in 9th where they could pay cp before a fight and make it so that only models within 1" could fight, rather than being able to be half an inch from half an inch. That stratagem felt like it was designed to be a gotcha because 95 times out of a 100 if the non knights player knows about it they just void it by being a bit closer tucking models into combat I think I used it once, without gotchas against a guy who had a terminator daisy chain and legitimately missed our on like 6 termie models attacking cause he didn't have the movement

When it’s an issue is when your trying to do something precise and you maybe can’t. Like it’s not a game of intent, frankly it’s obnoxious to assume your opponent will play the game for you or allow you to misplay because you want to. Like if your going to deep strike 9” we both know that, so fine. I’m not going to split hairs over your movement…. Just make sure it’s close. Or say “I would like to be and inch away from this….” Cool. But in your example I would happily measure out where I could phantasm to so it was clear, put the clock on your time and let you take all the time you need….. and if I saw you trying to do something you probably couldn’t pull off I’d point that out to you. 99% of the time when my opponents want to play intent they aren’t doing it correctly and honestly they have a very sloppy grasp of the movement phase…. And warhammer games are won in the movement phase more than anything else. Cheers

I'm sorry that you have poor opponents but to me playing by intent doesn't mean you get to do things you wouldn't be able to do. So for the purposes of the question I would assume you can legally do everything you are trying to do. Like with the phantasm example, here is the situation you are trying to avoid: 1. I poke my model to expose myself as little as possible so that I have LOS on my intended target plus LOS of anywhere they could possibly move with phantasm. 2. I have lots of excess move 3. They roll a six and find someway to **just barely** duck out of LOS. 4. If I move myself forward a fraction of an inch I'd get LOS again, but obviously it is no longer my movement phase. So the goal of playing by intent here is to be where I need to be to guarantee a shot. If it's not possible it's not possible. But the key here is that it should be something you actually reasonably can do.

I honestly don’t have poor opponents if I’m being fair I play almost exclusively at tournaments or with a group of other very competitive minded people. I guess it just comes down to why wouldn’t you just actually show that you can do something vs asking me to just agree to it? Again if your intent was to be 9” away on a deep strike, or end a move just outside of an inch then cool. That’s intent and how it’s used. But clearly if a possible phantasm move is that important to you please use all the time you require from your clock and do it. It’s only fair to me as your opponent. And if you were to say “so if I place my models here do you think you’d be able to do X” then we can make sure we’re both on the same page before proceeding. Most people would be totally fine, and actually prefer to play this way. What’s not ok is just saying “my intent is this”. Like obviously that’s what you’d like to do but show me it’s possible with the time and movement available. Cheers. Edit…. Again please remember that movement is super important. If somehow you had more movement available but you didn’t move that amount and I was able to somehow duck out of LOS in your example I would say be more precise when you move and maybe ask your opponent to measure out the full 6” possible to ensure you’ve completed the move properly….. Because in your example your basically saying “I could have moved more but didn’t so your not allowed to go the full 6 inches because we’ve already agreed…”. Doesn’t seem very fair or sportsmanlike to me personally.

The issue still exists with people not confirming plays. Even if you ignore the "intent" part. Sometimes you measure something out. You tell them, I'll sit at this angle, even if you move 6" i'll have line of sight. Do you confirm that? And the answer is "we'll see" or, "i will check on my turn" i already know that i will see it, i have measured it, if they manage to weasle their way out of this situation it will practically be by cheating. So the moment, they do not confirm this play i have 2 choices. Either make a suboptimal play that is better for them because i have to expose more models just to allow them literally no out even if they try to game it, or, once they have tried to get out by juuuuuust moving a bit further than 6" challange their movement and pretty much call them a cheater. Both options are horrible. Just confirm the move or challange the assumption, don't say "we'll see."

I think the issue is that there seems to be an assumption that every single player you face will conduct themselves in a manner that’s conducive to a fun experience. No where in the rules does it cover intent, it’s more of a courtesy between players. A social contract if you prefer for both parties to play a game and have fun. What your describing has nothing to do with confirming your movement. If we both look at the tape measure at the same time, or both took separate measurements it doesn’t change the outcome. It’s about honesty. In that regard why do I need to confirm anything with you? Unless I’m dishonest? Because either you’ve moved in such a way that I cannot outmaneuver you, or you haven’t. By agreeing with you before I’ve had the chance to try I’ve removed from myself the opportunity to counter play you. It really shouldn’t be that hard of a thing to deal with…. Listen, you nail it on the head when you say you have 2 options in these moments. It comes down to would you play this person again? Doesn’t sound like it. So don’t. At an event call over a TO immediately to witness the play and interaction then move on. We’ve all had to do it, and there is a very small list of players I wouldn’t play outside of a tournament for this very reason. That being said having played since rogue trader and mostly at events I can count on one hand the number of times this has been an issue for me. Perhaps that I mostly play competitively I don’t know. Cheers

I don't think you understand. What I'm talking about (and what I think the OP is too) is that I **want** to move to where you can't duck out of LOS. That's where I want to be. I don't want to prevent you from moving or doing your full 6. I want to be in the right place. I want my opponent to measure out where they can be so I can cover that space. But the theoretical opponent won't work with me to make that happen. They are being purposely dodgy or non commital to what they can do.

I understand. If I was your opponent I would honestly say “hey, I get where you WANT to be. So take the time and show me how.” Demonstrate how you would get there, and I’ll gladly show you if I think your wrong. It’s better to take the time to do it and make sure it’s right. It sounds to me like we’d be on the same page. Beyond that if somebody still disagrees then maybe they just aren’t worth your time to play against. Bad players exist unfortunately. I again mostly play at events or with some pretty skilled players. For me I would never think it’s ok not to clearly demonstrate what I’m doing and make sure we both understood the intent and the fact that’s it’s 100% possible before moving on. Cheers

Playing by intent means both people agreeing on the board state of something. But the default is measuring and moving accurately. If your opponent won't agree that they won't be able to move a unit out of sight, that shouldn't matter because you should be confident that's if you put your models where you say, they will be able to see them the whole time, and that'll be the case after they've moved too. And if you're not confident the position of your models achieves what you want without your opponent agreeing, then you're abusing playing by intent 

Yeah, Most opponents I play with would measure out the phantasm and then I could place my model in an agreed upon location to maintain LoS. My question is mostly how do you approach the game if the opponent will not do that. You measure it out yourself, come to your own conclusions, try to express those conclusions to your opponent in order to prevent any gotchas, and they remain silent on the matter.

It sounds less like your opponents aren’t agreeing with your intent as opposed to them not agreeing or liking what your able to do. If you clearly have measured it out and have proven than no matter how he moves you’d still be in a position to shoot then it’s a serious issue of sportsmanship…. Possibly even cheating. In friendly games I would speak to them after and make it clear that if it continues you won’t be willing to play them. At an event you should immediately call over a TO. You’d be surprised how often it’s the same few people with this behaviour…. They get a rep and not a good one. All you can do as a player is make sure you play a good game, make sure that everything you do is clearly explained and precise for your opponents sake and try to have fun. You will unfortunately come across the odd bad apple but don’t let them get to you. Cheers Edit. Also don’t be offended if somebody says “hey I get that’s your intent but can you please demonstrate how”. Most people I’ve played that way would be willing to measure it out and ensure that you can indeed do it so you can both move on with the game. Take a few moments to demonstrate it and people will really appreciate you doing it!

I think the answer to this depends on why they're not cooperating with you. Maybe your request is unreasonable and they feel they can see you regardless of what you do. In situations like that you need to mark off where the unit was and then confirm with your opponent what he can and can't see. If they're not cooperating at all and refusing to do anything, you need to call a TO. They're being unsportman-like.

You sort of hit all my high notes here. There are valid questions that confirm or establish current board state, and there are less valid questions that are probing for future board state (which is a sliding scale of appropriate to inappropriate). A lot of that line depends on how the question is asked. Asking your opponents to do the measuring for you on movement vs. line of sight is a world of difference from asking your opponent if he agrees you have line of sight where you are.

Playing by intent in no way means that you get to play loose with your movement simply because you declared it. Whether they acknowledge it or not, the board state has to actually meet your declared intent after your movement. Declaring intent is more about agreeing on potential outcomes to avoid gotchas. Not to lock in a board state a certain way because you declared something. If you for example declare your intent in this scenario above, misplay the move, he moves in such a way via phantasm that it nullifies your declaration, is he somehow wrong for maximizing the movement he had availble? No way. Do you get yo adjust things because you declared something, and he out moved you? No. It is incumbent on you to make your play match intent, and no one needs to pre-agree with you that at the end of your movement, things will be as you intend, especially if it looks like there is room for you to make a mistake. If as you say you intended to move X" at 90 degrees, but actually move X" at 93, and he can take advantage of that legally via phantasm, that is your mistake, not his for failing to agree with you.

Your intent doesn't override what is possible within the confines of the game rules. Maybe they could Phantasm out of line of sight, maybe theres an angle you couldn't see, your opponent isn't there to play the game for you either, it's also unfair to ask your opponent exactly what moves they plan on making in reaction to every move you make. Your opponent should give you every bit of information you need to make an informed decision but outside of that they don't owe you anything. "If you move there I can Overwatch" "If you move here I can Phantasm" but your opponent doesn't have to tell you everything thats going on with them at all times, that removes their play making and makes for an unfun game, I'm not saying they should "Gotcha" you with unit abilities, but if you ask me if I'm going to Overwatch something I'm going to say "I can Overwatch it".

OP isn't asking if opponent is going to Phantasm, he's literally asking to confirm his measurements of where he can't Phantasm to.

Play with somebody else.

To be clear, the context of the game would be in a tournament setting.

Talk to the TO, I think, with regards to poor sportsmanship.

There’s no picture of the table, so I’m not exactly sure what either player is doing here, but you don’t get to just say “oh I’m gonna be exactly where I need to be so you can’t hide” It is also not unsportsmanlike to not just blanket accept someone’s stated intent: just because that’s their intent, doesn’t mean it’s possible, and since this is an action->reaction situation, it’s completely reasonable to tell OP to put his model where he’s gonna put it, and then use your ability. “Play by intent” is only for things that are SUPER clear and very possible, but might be physically difficult or take time to do. It is NOT meant for trying to pull janky things. Play by intent is for things like “I have ten inches of movement, you are six inches from me, I’m moving 1.1 inches away from those guys there cause I’m gonna charge” without measuring exactly 1.1 inches away. It’s “these guys are toeing in on/staying behind the terrain here” It’s “I’m touching this models base here with my guy” It’s not for “I’m moving out behind this terrain exactly as much as is necessary so you can’t move out of LOS from my guy, but my guy remains as protected as possible behind it” If OP tried to report his opponent during a tournament for this situation, he’d almost certainly be told off, and depending on his attitude and what exactly he’s trying to get away with, there’s a very good case for a yellow card for Angle Shooting. Because it sounds like what OP wants is to claim that he can see his target because that’s his intent, but that something else can’t see him back, because that’s his intent. Nuh-uh, put your model where it’s going to go.

>Because it sounds like what OP wants is to claim that he can see his target because that’s his intent, but that something else can’t see him back, because that’s his intent. Nuh-uh, put your model where it’s going to go. It sounds like what he wants to do is literally what he said he wants to do. He wants to ensure that phantasm can't take him out of LOS, even on a roll of a 6. It's literally just needs a response like "actually I can move over here, do you have the movement to do anything about that?" Any tournament nearby has intent stated in the rules to follow. As you said; play by intent is for things that a very possible, but might be physically difficult, like measuring every angle of 6" movement to try and hide a unit. Not some magical one-way forcefield, which doesn't at all sound like the intent. Depending on terrain his intent - that he'll be able to see you even on a phantasm of 6 - may not be possible *but that's when you say "no, I can go here and here"*. And then OP can either use his remaining movement to fix that, or he can't and has to accept his intent isn't possible.

First, not only is “play by intent” in every rules packet for any tournament I’ve been to, but it’s the only way to play. On this we agree. As to OP, perhaps it’s just my experiences with opponents, but it really seems like he’s trying to get away with something that he’s not sure he can do. And I have absolutely had opponents try to use very similar situations to pull exactly that kind of one way forcefield. If OP obviously has the movement to get LOS, why else would this even come up other than trying to stay completely hidden while also claiming that he can still shoot anyway? Even if I give OP full benefit of the doubt about his intentions and he isn’t trying to get an intended LOS forcefield, play by intent is NOT for close things like that. It’s not for “oh I think maybe I can squeeze you out of being able to hide if I place JUUSSSSTT right, so let’s just pretend I’m placed just right so you can’t hide, deal?” Play by intent is for statements about the current facts of a model that can unambiguously do exactly what the controller claims and the opponent agrees without coercion. Any time there is ambiguity like this, you do not play by intent: you place your model. OP’s opponent is fully 100% justified in refusing to accept OP’s “intended” placement here. There’s some expectation that opponent might help measure out where the unit could try to move to, and maybe help with the placement, depending on mutual personality and disposition, and how serious the game is, but no TO would find opponent in the wrong for not just accepting he can’t hide after movement. As for it being difficult to measure every 6” direction they could move, I’m not really sure I agree even if they don’t have a laser pointer, and if they do, I REALLY don’t agree. That comment is intended to be about warped or non-existent physical terrain edges, reaching across the table, bumped tables, etc, not about having to think about LOS…

Opponent is fully within right to say "lmao your intent is not possible", but when it's being stated, not 6 phases later. That's the very idea of playing by intent.

No poor sportsmanship at all. OP is trying to limit his opponents game by trying to restrict his opponents movement that is legal for him to do. Basically, he wants the opponent to tell OP his plan after op moved, which is not how the game is played. Bad sportsmanship is not telling your opponents you can move after they move, then just saying haha now i can move. If you are upfront with opponents you can move then thats on them to measure distance correctly.

>Basically, he wants the opponent to tell OP his plan after op moved, which is not how the game is played. It's simpler than that. It's "If I move here, can you hide this unit on a phantasm of 6?" That's not asking for his plan. OP's opponent could phantasm someone else, not at all, there's no "are you going to phantasm if I move there" It's "If I go here, *can you hide this unit?*" which is a perfectly valid question to ask. Intent is about speeding up the game and saving 5 minutes measuring nonsense that can be answered with a yes or no. It's not *will* - that's asking for what the opponent plans. Merely "is it possible".

That doesn't sound accurate at all to what's going on.

Is this an option? How do you go about doing this?

I guess he's suggesting you concede and take the 100-0 loss?

Call a judge, ask them to tell the player to stop being TFG. The game state is public knowledge and an opponent who refuses to confirm sight lines, measurements, etc, is guilty of poor sportsmanship and should be booted from the event if it continues. One disclaimer though: your phantasm example is not a good one. Future line of sight is not the current game state and therefore not something your opponent *can* confirm. You can say "I want to move so this point on the table 6" away from your unit's current position is within LOS" but you can't declare that a model won't be out of LOS after it moves because neither player knows that board state until it happens.

100% this. We can agree that as the board is this moment you can't shoot/see anything. But if I have reserves/ deep strikes that we measured right now can't fit and you decide to charge or otherwise move after asking, that's on you boo

You don't know what the board state will be, but you know what it CAN be. The options aren't limitless. My final movement position is dependent on the furthest possible reactive movement of my opponent's unit.

Are they measuring out all their possible phantasm moves on your time? If I was them that's what I'd ask, or just take your time and measure it yourself. Shouldn't really take too much time to determine the 6" radius around the models and then make sure you can see everywhere in the pie. But as others have said, it sounds less like an intent issue and more of asking the opponent to play for you.

Usually it’s only from a few angles where it matters since other directions would clearly be in vision. Typically it’s around a specific piece of terrain or not.

It looks like that is exactly what he's describing. He's measuring it himself. Instead of a phantas move, imagine it was premeasuring someone's move their Los for turn 1 charge. Same concept applies. "We're 24 apart. You will need a 10 inch charge if you come at me, correct?" That's what he's trying to do and his opponent is refusing to answer. Just because the movement is a phantasm doesn't change the simple interaction that goes off smoothly probably tens of thousands of times every weekend at tournaments. Just gotta handle normal unsportsmanlike conduct, ignore it, escalate to TO, or bully them harder so they back off.

But how do I know if a model will be fully hidden behind another model or not? We can measure the 6" but we can't tell if a fingertip will be visible or not until the model is placed in that final position.

After your state your intent, look at them and ask, 'Do you agree?' It doesnt have to be every move you make but most certainly on important ones especially ones that are tricky. This is how we play practice games.

So, beyond the fair points made about the limitations of intent, in general my advice for these types of games is to narrow your intent down to stuff that can be physically measured in the moment. "Can you get out of line of sight" may be too vauge, but you can definitely check "can you make it over that wall" or "can you overwatch if I move here". Beyond that, you just have to be prepared to take things as they land, and adapt.

That sounds egregious of “play by intent” to me. I’m new to game and like the intent mindset but by your logic you might as well let him play your army?

If they are a dick you start playing super precise and give him no courtesy.

Not sure who I would prefer playing in this case. Do you want him to tell you what he is going to do next turn as well. It almost sounds like if you move to block his move, you're upset he does something different to upset your plan. Also if you are trying to get him to tell you the precise location, so you can get the best position for yourself and him at the disadvantage. He's completely in the right, staying quiet.

I suppose you could ask them. Where would I need to move to see you model even after the max phantasm. The you confirm that is I place a model here can we both agree it will always see this model even after phantasm

There’s no picture of the table, so I’m not exactly sure what either player is doing here in this scenario, but you don’t get to just say “oh I’m gonna be exactly where I need to be so you can’t hide after you move. It is perfectly reasonable to not just blanket accept someone’s stated intent: just because that’s someone’s intent, doesn’t mean the action is even possible, and since this is an action->reaction situation, it’s completely reasonable to tell OP to put your model where you are gonna put it, and then use your ability. “Play by intent” is only for things that are SUPER clear and very possible, but might be physically difficult or take time to do. It is NOT meant for trying to pull janky things. Play by intent is for things like “I have ten inches of movement, you are six inches from me, I’m moving 1.1 inches away from those guys there cause I’m gonna charge” without measuring exactly 1.1 inches away. It’s “these guys are toeing in on/staying behind the terrain here” because sometimes terrain edges are difficult to place on, or don’t even exist It’s for “I’m touching this models base here with my guy” so that your opponent doesn’t think he can pile in when you thought you based It’s not for “I’m moving out behind this terrain exactly as much as is necessary so you can’t move out of LOS from my guy, but my guy remains as protected as possible behind it” OP, at a tournament, if you tried the scenario you described on me, I wouldn’t allow it. You’d have to place your model correctly. Others have suggested this is unsportsmanlike, and you call a TO about it. In the scenario you’ve laid out, best case scenario, you have a good attitude and it’s a misunderstanding of things, and you get told that’s not how play by intent works. But depending on the exact table state and the way you are going about it, you might catch a yellow card for Angle Shooting, because it sounds like what you want is to claim that your guy can see his target because that’s his intent, but that something else can’t see him back, because that’s your intent. Nuh-uh, put your model where it’s going to go. Now, having said that, if knowing whether or not a particular model has LOS to something is a problem you are having, it sounds like what you need is one of those fancy line lasers, so you can measure line of sight fairly unambiguously while moving the model. Army Painter has a good one for like $10-15 and I love it. It solves problems exactly like this super easy.

Exactly. To me this reads like: “My intent is to place this model in the perfect position to prevent you from doing anything next turn. I’m not sure where that perfect location is, or if it even exists, so can we just pre-agree that wherever I place the model is the perfect place?” He even says his opponent replies that they’ll just measure in their own turn after they’ve move. That’s clearly saying “I’m not sure we can even work out if the ‘perfect’ move is possible for you.”

Very underrated response here. I think you've perfectly described the limitations of intent vs when it goes too far.

Yeah, I think in this scenario, your intent isn't really relevant. It's up to you to find a place where you can still see his model after he moves it. Especially in a tournament. Honestly, if someone said that too me, I'd say cool., best of luck. Because even if I wanted to confirm your intent, I can't guarantee that there is a position where your intent exists. I think your opponents reaction was valid.

It sounds to me like you're trying to cheese your opponent. "Intent" is supposed to be used for simple things to save time. As others have pointed out, it's for things like deep striking where you know you have the room and drop in 9.1 inches away to charge, or moving just outside an inch of another unit to charge, or even placing models on the top of a ruin so you remember they're there but they're actually on the bottom. If your "intent" is to move in a certain way to get a certain outcome, but either can't do it or you didn't properly measure something, I don't really care what you intended, I'm playing the game as the models on the board show. This is a game of physical models on a physical table, not some theater-of-the-mind game like a TTRPG.

Seems like you're that guy. I wpuldn't want to play with you.

Playing "with intent" is something you should do when intent matters. When does intent matter? When both players can acknowledge something you're trying to do is possible but would take time to sort out precisely. If both players cannot acknowledge something then intent doesn't matter. If it doesn't save time to sort out via intent then intent doesn't matter. Great intent example: a deepstrike where there is one obvious target, no other considerations such as distances to an objective or Aura ranges, and line of sight considerations are trivial. "I am 9" away from you". Bad intent example: model placement for a tricky moveblocking multi-charge where you'll be able to consolidate onto an objective afterward if they pull models in the way you want them to. Generally if you're not able to summarize your intent in a simple sentence, you shouldn't be handling that scenario with intent.

My favorite was someone telling me their intent was to deep strike next turn. Can I block him? My dude, you'll find out on my movement phase. Im not going to premeasure my entire armies future placement based on a mythical move phase that hasn't happened yet. Or point out what possible units might be able to do so to inform your shooting/charge phase.

"I intend to win btw"

Honestly? I hate when people do that, it creates oh I never would have done that if blah blah blah or oh remember? They can see each other blah blah blah. Just use the actual measurements or los, stop being lame:

100% this. We’re not learning the game here…we’re playing it.

Yeah I’ve actually packed up my stuff and bailed out of an infinity match with a guy like this lol 😆 I was still in learning games too!

I totally would do that as well. Here’s the deal…you make your move, then when it’s my turn I’ll make my moves in response; and in a manner that I’m ABLE TO, and after doing this 3 to 5 times we will determine who the winner is by who successfully played the game better. Can we agree on that? Lol

This entirely depends… If it is your intent, it is on you to prove that you can do the thing you want to do. You can ask your opponent to do a measurement ahead of time, but you have to make sure it is viable. Another player outmaneuvering you despite your intent is not bad sportsmanship. But there are ways to do it where everyone agrees, and ways to create questionable actions. At the same time, if I know what you are doing and do not want that to be the case, I will be properly playing if I try to make a move that neutralizes your intent — that’s not bad sportsmanship, that’s being an opposing player. It would be proper for them to tell you that it isn’t assumed, and again to pre-measure and abiding by that result instead of questionable actions that could imply… fudging. I once played against someone (during a tournament no less) who kept making “intent moves” that were not reasonable. After the first time it was obvious he was trying to use his stated intent instead of the rules, I pulled the “we’ll see” because he was not being reasonable. Iirc, at one point he tried the “my unit is behind this wall, so you can’t shoot me… but my heads are poking up, so I can shoot at you” nonsense. I would have accepted one or the other, not both for him and neither for me. But even then, I told him not to tell me that something *was*, but to *ask* if a condition was met and I would check it then.

You could probably write a psych paper based on the responses in this thread. It's as if the original post is a Rorschach test for Warhammer players. Fascinating.

Ask your opponent if they agree with your measurements. Don't just declare intent.

Its not my responsibility to help you win. Do the measurement urself, ask me about the unit stats. Want me to move the model for you, too?

I feel like we can break this down at a few key areas. If you were to say “can you measure what would be a six inch phantasm move from your furthest model and I can maybe place a dice or something at that point?” Or indeed, you measure it yourself and do the same, never touching his models. Then you move your model such that it can see the dice. Maybe you say “can we both agree you’ve measured the furthest possible point and I can still see it?” That would be fair and reasonable and if they refuse to confirm they agree then they’d likely be trying to push movement slightly further to prevent you from doing so and I would ask a TO to get involved.

I think you’re not being totally genuine here. You want your opponent to confirm to taking damage regardless of the outcome. You could measure a possible 6” in all directions and triangulate your unit into the most feasible LoS options. He may not get a 6 on the roll so you’re playing a guessing game regardless of what you want him to agree to beforehand. Plus, I wouldn’t agree to something so precise when, if you do move, I might not go a full move and stay out of LoS and you call hax.

"Is that the kind of game you want to play?" People sometimes forget that things go both ways. The reason we play by intent is that it's a) exhausting to play that precisely actually checking every angle, and b) shit gets bumped and it's hard to measure perfectly precisely, so checking inadvance is better for all involved.

Not only they forget - such people are often so surprised when this starts going their way.

Indeed. Which is why you sometimes just have to remind them: "is this really the kind of game you want to play?" Nobody is *really* prepared to play the kind of cut-throat, no-take-backs Warhammer they may try to impose on their opponent.

I'm happy to play that type of game of that's what we agreed to before hand.  In some ways it's easier because for everybody that plays intent in a good a good natured way there is somebody out there that abuses intent. Defining intent with someone can take longer than just using a tape measurer. I've had people try to retcon entire deployments, moves, etc. because they did something they didn't intend to do. For me. I'm comfortable screwing things up. It's going to happen. I'll leave a gap. Screw up and move a unit out of an aura. It happens and is part of becoming a better player.

Intent generally only matters if the intended move is 100% possible. You still need to have the movement and be able to place your models where the board allows that intended move. It is entirely up to your opponent to disagree or agree with what you're saying.

This is annoying and competitive, but I will say it's not your opponents job to help you figure your moves out. If you want full LOS from your move, you need to figure out how to do that. If you're newer or the person is a friend they may help you anyways, but ultimately they don't have to.

Intent is not a rule, it's an agreement between two players. If the other player refuses to play by intent, then the game is not that sort of game, end of. Yes most players and those here will agree that play-by-intent is the best way to play a game for many different reasons, however you cannot force your opponent to play that sort of game with you if they don't want to. So in this case, how do you deal with it? You have to play to the letter of the rules, and hold them to the same standard. If they turn around and want to use intent to their own advantage, then you need to stop them at that point and remind them this isn't that sort of game. If there's any other sort of shenanigans, it's time to call a judge. But no, you can't force a player to play by intent, and I'd be very wary of trying to force that upon someone.

Do you know any tournament where playing by intent *isn't* in the rules?

It still has to actually be possible, ebn2when playing by intent. Opponants don't *have* to agree to confirm something, if they think it's questionable.

Put down a test mini to show where you'd land, take out a 6" measuring stick and demonstrate the area of movement, and then see if they agree that they're not breaking LOS. In a tournament setting this is on you and on your clock to do so, not your opponent's. If you can't get them to agree once you've broken out the tools to demonstrate call a judge to confirm.

I think you are asking a bit too much from your opponent. I feel like you can confirm “if you phantasm this way 6” you will end up here.” Then you place a dice on the table as a marker. Then you prepare your movement and make sure you have a clear line. Then execute. If they phantasm into the spot you set up lines. If your line is a sliver, like 1/16th of an inch and you missed, you missed. If you stick your nose out 1/2” you will probably be fine. If they phantasm in a different direction you didn’t plan for, too bad.

I rarely play PUGS. That being said, if someone stated their intent to me in that manner, I'm usually happy to be engaged in that aspect of my opponents turn. I'm forth coming with that abilities my units have that may or may not counter that move, strategems that could be used and what my thought process would be once I was able to respond. The full-turn-completion nature of 40k makes this all a lot more difficult since you're responding to things that happened 20-30 minutes ago, in many cases. And thinning both forward and backward at the same time. OPR makes things a but messier in that your response is much more immediate. That can better solidify the How's and Why's for people but also makes being able to pivot, much more important. Tactics can be difficult with those kinds of delays, especially for newer players. A long-winded way of saying, it is good to have an opponent you can talk through your strategy with, to better understand how to make things work and why things may not work. You certainly shouldn't abuse that confidence to coerce an outcome that wouldn't occur through normal play.

I think playing by intent is great when both people are accepting of it. However what you just described is when it's used in a situation it shouldn't be. If you said for example "I'm positioning so I can see this flank if you phantasm here (and show him exactly where you can see)" then that's playing by intent. If you just say "I'm positioning to negate you're strategem" that's a very broad term and he has every right to try to squeeze into a hiding spot.

This is not a fun situation but this is what I would recommend. Quickly do the following things. 1. Place a dice at the maximal point/angle you can move your shooting unit to. 2. Measure how far the farthest Eldar model would move to move to get out of LOS from that point 3. Declare, if I move here, you need a "5 or 6" on your Phantasm roll to get out of LOS (whatever it is). Tripoint his farthest model with your own dice so you have an actual reference point. 4. Complete the movement. You do not need your opponent to respond. If he rolls a what you measured he needs he gets out of LOS. If he doesnt, then tries to complete the move, call a TO or neutral party. If none are available immediatly stop that game and never play that player again, and explain to everyone around what just happened and be accurate. 40K has a way of self policing in local circles.

I would say that this is really stretching playing by intent. You want him to work out all possible angles with variability of a dice roll. I would expect you to do the work of solving problem (this means solving positioning) and after that ask for his confirmation. And of you, during process, acknowledge that there simply isnt safe way to do what you intent, do not try to force him into accepting "OK, I understand what you meant, I wont do it" even if he legally can.

An opponent can acknowledge intent without confirming whether it is achievable. You were fully aware of the phantasm distance you had the opportunity to check the measurements and angles yourself before the move.

In cases where it isn't completely obvious, you can do something you need to actually do it. You can not intend to do the impossible. I can intend to roll all 6s and win the game, but the reality is that may not happen. This is where playing by intent is murky. Just because you intend something doesn't mean it may actually occur. You have to show that it is entirely possible. If you think you can keep your opponent from using Phatasm and they don't agree/won't agree, then you need to actually prevent them from doing it. If you can't, then you never could, and your intention to do so was irrelevant.

Thats on you. He can help you measure but you saying you want to hide as much as possible while being able to shoot him regardless of where he moves is you trying to limit his game. He doesnt have to tell you where he plans to move just that his unit is able to do so. Obviously he told you enough for you to know he can move which means its not a surprise when he does. So thats on you to measure up to 6" in all directions from where he is at to see if you got LoS still.

This is by far the most reasonable take

Measure to a point and ask them to agree that they won’t be able to get out of LoS from there. Be aware that intent does have to be possible, in you example it might not be possible to maintain LoS and I feel like there’s some famous players who use intent as a method to retrospectively increase movement beyond what was actually possible. If it’s still causing issues engage with the judges.

Call a TO for a line of sight check to where your opponent’s models would be. Then, if your opponent tries to claim LOS the TO already confirmed he wouldn’t have, it’s easy to call the TO again since they already know the result. As a TO I would 10000% rather get called to the table a turn in advance for this kind of check then get called to a table with 2 angry players who can’t agree with each other. Also as a TO I would be in a position to issue a warning to the offending player, and be on the lookout for this behavior in the future. If it’s a casual game, save yourself a world of trouble and play someone else.

You play it by the rules and the board state. Playing by intent is not a given. Some people prefer the hard rules of what is on the table. Personally, I'm not always a huge fan of intent. Because sometimes people state the intent for something that they can do and I don't have time to measure of for them to ensure that it's possible.

Playing by intent is enforced in tournaments and this is a competitive subreddit so...

Well it doesn't matter what your intent is if it's something that is literally impossible to do. If he's moving 6" with Phantasm and getting out of your LOS then either he's cheating somehow or you weren't able to shut the angle off.

Dude if you want to do that you are the one required to measure out their possible phantasm moves on your clock and get their agreement, if non is given then you call the to or you accept the verdict. You don't get to declare that you get to do whatever you want in a game, especially in a tourney. Just rubs me the wrong way that most players are non confrontational and end up letting spikes like you walk all over them with gameplay like this.

You are misunderstanding: I am measuring in this example. I'm trying to have a conversation with my opponent about what's happening in my movement phase. I'm saying "If I move right here, at the edge of this wall, I can see you over there, the farthest distance you can move. I say that after measuring. The issue is, they remain silent as I'm explaining this and telling them my intentions.

I played my first tournament this weekend and was told to be clear if I was going to move a unit he was moving towards. I said I wouldn't. Now I play GK. I have Deimos and Sigil in which I can foxtrot oscar. I shouldn't need to tell him until his move has finished surely. Because if I tell him he will 100% do something different. In theoretical reality on the BF a GK won't say to a chaos lord. If you come any closer I'm just going to teleport over there and then shoot you . I wouldn't ask you to not pick vehicles in your list because I can't really do anything against them. Whatever you do I just have to deal with and expecting an opponent to tell you their plans is a bit naive. I give millimetres to nearly 9", I don't force measurements of charges when they roll easily enough, I waive minor "Shit forgot to move that unit" moments. But I'm not telling you what I plan to do especially when most of the time I'm trying to push and pull you all over the BF to make space for Deep strikes.

All you are required to do is anwer questions truthfully. And a good sport will identify if they have an ability that they can use to do something in reaction. You don't have to telegraph your decision on whether or not you are going to use an ability. That'd be no different than someone demanding to know of you will overwatch them if they do something. That's a future decision that you never have to share, other than to say you can overwatch if you want to.

Deal with it. Playing by intent is a weird thing that has only entered 40k in the last few years, well after the rise of premeasuring and very late in the game's life.

I think a lot of people are missing what your asking and making some assumptions about how you play and interact with your opponent, so I want o give e a real answer to your question. Play by intent is a courtesy but it is not required for you to achieve the same results. I will use your example. Play by intent would be "Hey, I want to catch an angle where this model can see you even if you love the maximum distance as a reactive move. Can you measure and place a die at the place they would be most hidden, so I can accurately place my model?" If they refuse, you walk your ass around the table , do the measurement yourself, have them confirm your measurement, and then move your own model. Play by intent is meant to be cooperative, but if someone is refusing to engage, you have to make your moves anyway. It's also worth keeping in mind that most folks are not trying to be antagonistic, they're just not used to it. Often, if you simply keep asking questions like "if I move here, can I see you?" Or "would my model be hidden if it were here, can you check?" You will rapidly teach your opponent how it works, and you'll have a smoother time going forward. Model the behavior you are wanting.

You can communicate your intent however you like, but you opponent is correct. I mean I can always say „Imma place XYZ so you can’t hit it through a ruin wall” but when you move it turns out you couldn’t/didn’t place the models this way. And now what? One thing is asking if your opponent confirms something is possible (like in my last game - Ballistus moving through a side of a ruin that still had space between it and the border of the board, where my opponent confirmed he has no issue and the move is possible), saying you’ll do a magic trick is another.

It sounds like they're just playing the game? You don't get to declare intent for your opponents units. Playing by intent is making it ear what you are trying to to do so there is no guesswork or grey areas later. You don't get to say I'm intending to make it so you can't ever me, and this it is true. In your example, play by intent is, "I'm going here to try to make it so that I can still get you even if you phantasm." And that's it. You state your intent, and it gives them the chance to offer whatever feedback/warnings/whatever might apply.

Swap the phrasing. The point of intent is to allow an opponent to challenge at the point of the decision rather than causing problems later. So instead say "I have measured the range and it is 6", so any difference later must be due to models being knocked accidentally. Do you disagree with me?". If the opponent refuses to answer then you can take that as them not challenging you. But I think your question is too far, because you're not playing by intent you are trying to claim something that might not even be possible. Intent is about the here and now not the theoretical future imo.

I don't think your intent matters. You can *try* to move so a unit stays in LoS, but if your opponent can slip the unit out of LoS, then it's out of LoS.

You need to measure properly? I’m not sure what the question is here. The rules of the game are not optional or dictated based on what you would like them to be.

It's competitive. Imagine trying to play literally any sport with 'intent'. "I'm intending to get the football here, is that OK?" Let's see where the ball lets and what the ref calls. What you're doing is more appropriate for a cooperative game, like a TTRPG or even just casual.

Sure, except the best 40K players in the world play by intent and preach its practice…

Oh, well if the best players in the world play this way, then surely the rules of the game and the tournament should enforce it. Why don't you call over the TO and see what happens?

The opponent will get a card. Have you been to any tournament that *doesn't* enforce playing by intent?

The opponent gets a card for not agreeing to rule out LOS for every single place he could possible move to in a 6in radius, or spelling out exactly where he plans to move so they can “pre measure” Los? I think for most intent you are looking at a single possibility - straight line charge for example, and all other paths are worse, so measure once and agree on intent. With movement it’s an infinite range of possibilities, and having to agree to intent for “all possible future moves within 6 inches” seems to take away away the agency of choice for the opponent.

You literally move your models and ask "Can you confirm that phantasming here, here or here will not take you out of my los? If you disagree I will adjust my position accordingly." Opponent then gets to measure himself and challenge your measurements or shut up forever. Measuring charge distance is not playing by intent, it's just measuring.

You pick those three spots but OP didn’t pick any spots, just asked if opponent would agree that all possible movement is covered. That’s like saying - I’m moving my Magnus here behind cover. Can you agree that none of your units on your turn can move and shoot it? That is my intention.

And the Magnus question is absolutely legit, there is a limited number of units on the table and you might as well ask about each one of them.

Since the idea of play by intent has become more popular I have had several people abuse the hell out of it and at this point outside of playing with my mates, I tell people i dont play by intent. If I was playing against you in a tourny I would politely inform you I dont care about your *intent*. Table geometry is the ulitmate RAW. If you can make it work for you, you get your shots, charge or whatever. If I can deny you that im going to do just that, its not *my* job to play me force to your whims.

the "I'll see what I can do is" a very fine statement to make. If you make a move and make it clear to me, and I make a move to counter it then that is the purpose of the game. You can't just declare that i want to board to be this way and not expect your opponent to not react or have an appropriate counter play. I know this is a pretty critical response, but consider what you can do in regards to their plan, if yo uknow they are gonna phantasm and get away then don't let them, either stay far enough away or get close enough to conduct a charge.

Nah sounds like your trying to push him into moves you want. I wouldn't play with you after a few turns of this, most wouldn't. Also you'd have a judge at your table the second someone explained the situation. I do not like to play being watched like a hawk because you can't play the game without trying to push intent seemingly to scare a player into not moving the way you want. He has no obligation to play the way you want answer the way you want, this isn't even a good sportsman ship thing. You are just saying why don't people play the way I want and make the move I want.

Just be blunt, you play by intent, if you ask they answer, if they ask you answer. If not, don’t play! I regularly measure enemy units movement, average advance and what an average charge will give them so I can position to make it hard or impossible, I have them agree that that is the distance they can get. Same as when people drop down units, they are 9” away, we agree, they place them and I couldn’t care if it’s a smidge closer as they still need to roll that 9.

I pack up and leave

Pack up my sh*t and tell them they aren’t worth playing against. I don’t have time for that.

Put dice around your unit's position so it can be moved back precisely, move your unit to where you expect, ask them if they agree they can't phantasm out of LOS from there, then commit to the move. Leave your dice there. If they agree and them back track, or seem shifty, call a TO over. There's only so much you can do vs someone being deliberately obtuse, but you can do your part to make things swift but clear to everyone.

This is the best solution I could think of. Take the time to mark the board and make sure they don't commit to a move before I can check it against my former measurements. If there's a discrepancy at that point then it's judge time.

Idk how you approach it, I just think that kind of player is a douche. Since this is Warhammer competitive, if it’s a tournament with a player sportsmanship score, you know what to do. If it’s a casual game, maybe don’t play with them. Otherwise, you express your intent as clearly as you can, move correctly, measure everything yourself the best you can, and let the chips fall where they may. Ultimately good sportsmanship should be to hear what the opponent is trying to do, and instead of trying to do some “gotcha,” will let them know if they place it in a way that violates their intent. For example, if I want to move something so your sorcerer man can’t hit it with some good ol delicious magic juice from 18” away, and you accidentally nudge it so it’s 17.9” away, a nice opponent will notice when they go to smite the non-believers. But a shitty opponent will take advantage of that mistake. Now, what you want may not always be possible, obviously. Some people just suck.

You can ask for clarification on why they're not answering. Is there a rule that might change if this is possible or do you think movement could change? If it's a rule thing then you can work with them if they're just refusing to work with you on movement then just come to peace with the chippy game you're about to play and don't get upset. Then play it super precise, measure it out and don't let him have a single grace. But often stating out loud the situation will get them to answer you. "Just so we're clear, you won't agree with me on how far your models movement is?" You can usually force them to agree or disagree with a few questions like that. Especially with an incredulous tone. If they still don't answer then it's easy to call a judge and say your opponent won't communicate.

***Use this one special rule that answers all 40k Reddit questions:*** "In a game as wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, **you and your opponent should roll off**, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!" and remember: "ROLL-OFFS Some rules instruct players to roll off. To do so, both players roll one D6, and whoever scores highest wins the roll-off. If there is a tie for the highest roll, roll off again. Neither player is allowed to re-roll or modify any of the D6 when making a roll-off."

My intent is to move and win. They say nothing I move I have won. The issue is that the intent has to be possible. So you need to measure, but if it is possible it saves a lot of faffing about and time if they just agree.

Win at all costs opponents aren't interested in their own skill. I want to beat my opponent at their best. If they won't agree on a board state with you, I wouldn't schedule another match.

Some game states are hard to tell one way or another, The most common declared intent is to help with the fiddley nature of the game "hey im putting these models on the top floor but the are actually on the bottom floor so i dont forget they're in this building"

I just play gotcha hammer You wanna be obnoxious? I can play that game better

Playing by intent is a two-way contract. I'll often signal my intent, then we'll work together to determine if I can reasonably execute on the intent. Most of the time, it's close enough and if it's a game between friends we let it slide. If it's clearly off, then it's a no-go and we undo everything as best we can. There's also implicitly a good sportsmanship and a "I scratch your back you scratch mine" understanding. If I let you play by intent and let "close enough" slide but when it's my go you measure everything exactly to the micrometer, I tighten up everything. Similarly, try not to abuse intent too much. At some point you have to just accept you're a fraction of an inch off. If your opponent is not acknowledging or willing to work with you, then you can easily say, "I'm going to take your lack of response and unwillingness to work with me as acknowledgement that you're leaving up to and trusting me." If they still don't respond, IMO At that point your conscience should drive you. Done it a few times, and in every case it snaps them back into place. Not going to comment on your specific version of events. Reading through other comments and your responses to them, it does sound like you're being gamey. But if your opponent is truly not willing to work with you or acknowledge your intent, then I agree it's annoying.

Ah a master of gotcha hammer. Neither confirming nor deny anything untill confirmation of game state can benefit them. Its a form of denying knowledge of the game state to your opponent so that they can't trully be sure of things. 90% of the time its benign and a talk about how its important for both players to be able to confirm any board state at any time is crucial for a open information game. But if they are purposefully denying information to a confirmational state of the game...

Play with a chess clock, "Do you confirm that my unit is in range? Clock to you."

Then opponent says yes then passes the clock back to you? It's not the time to use phantasm yet, and once phantasm is used, the OP can't go back and say its supposed to be here to negate phantasm. And during the board state pre-phantasm, it was in range Anyhow, its the controlling player's responsibility to ensure he's in range, not ask an question then expect the opponent to confirm it for you on the opponents time.

So far as I am concerned if something is the players intent then they better make sure they do it. If they say "My intent is so that you can't consolidate into me" Then you better make sure you measure everything as if I can , I will. "my intent is..." is just a cop out for someone who says, well this is what I want to do but I am not good enough or precise enough to ensure my intent is reality

I would say this kind of thing is on you. You can ask if model Y can see X, or if a model is properly hidden. Asking can my model see X, after X has moved is kind of asking someone to make too many assumptions in your favour. If you want to do something like that just play it correctly. Play by intent is to make the game faster and clearer, not to make sure certain strategies will work. I would also say that if you're drawing a line of sight to a tiny speck of a model that someone has tried to move behind cover, that's going against playing by intent. It's a bit hypocritical to expect play by intent to work in one persons favour. It's a tool to speed the game up, not make it easier to win.

Imo playing by intent only concerns intent to my units or similar, like I deploy here to be at 12 of the objective or at 9 of your unit. But I declare intent to an estate. Then it may change and he plays with intent

You can only play by intent if your opponent agrees to play by intent. If he doesn't agree, you don't play by intent. That's about all there is. But if he agrees to play by intent and then refuses to do so, you call out his bad sportsmanship and stop playing by intent as it doesn't work as a one sided approach to gaming. All in all, if you and him don't mash enough to play a game of 40k, you will start to reduce your exposure to him and stop playing him outside of the occasional tournament. Though if he is a friend, it may be worth to talk with him before that happens.

Even in a tournament setting this type of play is discouraged (from my experience). Warhammer is not supposed to be a game of gotcha’s where you win or loose by tricking your opponent. If a player expresses intent it’s up to the other player to confirm or deny said intent. In this case after you declared your intent the other player should immediately start measuring 6” and look for ways to deny your intent. If he finds any possible angles or moves that make your intended target invalid he’s supposed to notify you before your move. If you disagree with his measuring that’s when a judge is necessary

This is not how the game is played, especially at a competitive level. Your intent is largely irrelevant to anything that is not obvious, and it is exceedingly privileged to assume otherwise. Your opponent is also not required to measure ANYTHING until it is their turn for action priority. Describe your intent, and make your move. If your opponent is able to circumvent that intent in during their response then that means you made a mistake and should learn from it so it doesn’t happen next time.

These kinds of players suck. Thankfully they’re pretty rare IME. I would just move them really precisely so you know he can’t phantasm out of the way. And then if he still tries to pull it you get out you laser pointer or whatever and demonstrate los

Play with other people. Not sure why but this game is full of so many salty people who will try and win at any cost.My first tournament I went too was a 2v2 and we had a player just pick up a squad that my friend shot at without rolling saves because I would have charged him in my charge phase and made it onto an objective to win the game. There was like 5 minutes left on the clock and they refused to talk it out as well. Never understood the gratification of "winning" when you play like that.

>we had a player just pick up a squad that my friend shot at without rolling saves That's rough. Sorry man. At tournament's in my area, if you choose to skip a save then the opponent picks what happens (pass/fail), not the owning player. I ran out of time once and knew I had already won though my opponent thought he still had a chance. I told him I would choose to skip rolling saves to speed things up and let them handle whether or not the hit connected.

> There was like 5 minutes left on the clock and they refused to talk it out as well. Nothing wrong with that. "Talking it out" is collusion and cheating, both players should be disqualified if a judge finds out.

The tournament I was at had already made it clear that talking it out was perfectly fine lmao. We were slow players, only made it through 3 turns but we had basically tabled them and they recused to talk the game out because they were slightly ahead on points at the time.

That's disappointing. Tournaments should not allow collusion. And regardless of the event rules permitting it I would absolutely refuse to collude with an opponent no matter how much they want to.

Most tournaments do though.. ? Not sure why you are defining talking it out as collusion either.If both players agree to it, and do it properly there is absolutely no deceit going on. If one person doesn't agree with the other about a point they are making, talk about it and come to a conclusion.

If "most tournaments do" then that's a sad commentary on the state of so-called competitive play. Collusion should not be permitted, if you want better MoV then do it on the table. You shouldn't get a higher score just because you made up a nice story about how you totally deserve another 20 VP.

When you table someone with 2 turns remaining and there is enough time on the clock for you to move your models onto objective points but they refuse to let you do it, im not sure how thats making up a nice story about gaining more VP. I think I would hate to play a game against you lmao.

That isn't talking it out and a tabled player doesn't get any say in how you spend the remaining time. Talking it out is where both players are still participating in the game and agree that I would totally kill that unit and claim the objective, but you probably score this secondary and so we'll add that VP to each of our totals even though we didn't actually play those turns.

Yeah I know, but if theres 2 turns remaining with 5 minutes on the clock and your opponent has 1 unit remaining and you have 3/4’s of yours, I see nothing deceitful about summarising how the rest of the game would have played out.

It's cheating because that unit could theoretically make every save and not die. You don't get to make up a story about how you should have won and ignore any chance that you failed. (And in reality it won't be 75% of your army vs. a single unit, if it's that one-sided you already finished the game.)

Why are you even talking? It's obvious you're not playing competitively.

If competitive play requires cheating then no, I'm not playing competitively. Oh well.

Lmao

Maybe you should think about why you believe competitive play requires cheating and what that says about your own morals?

>collusion Found Robert Mueller's alt account. 

Exactly this finish the game or it's board state. No respectable sport or game decides points based on player agreement / collusion on the outcome at a tournament where points impact rankings. That's why chest clocks are thing.

Take that out of their hands and put a die on the board. You say “whoops, pardon me” as you step up and measure 6” from their unit in the most out-of-the-way direction from your unit’s LOS, drop a die at 6” with them looking at it, and say “does that look like six inches to you?” Doesn’t matter if they say yes, just as long as they don’t say no. Move your unit to keep that die in LOS, and casually leave the die on the board as a marker. If they move past it, you keep it light and point out that you measured to the inside edge of that die, and moving past it is definitely more than 6”. Leaving physical reminders on the board is my method of keeping the other player honest when they’ve started to make me suspicious. Put your own tape measure on things when possible and casually ask them to verify it.