Warhammer 40k What Does Playing With Intent Even Mean?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2024
- Ian and Steve sit down for a 40k chat about what "playing with intent" actually means when you're playing the game!
Be sure to like and subscribe for more 40k talk shows! - Zábava
The "Intent" was to have Ians right arm in the shot.
😂
Thanks for bringing this up, because i feel like "Intent" is a crutch used to play sloppy and just clean up after the fact when you have more information
Exactly. That's why real intent needs to be entirely premeditated and really just used to maintain a good game state
@@spacemarinesteve6057 yup 👍
Don't change things once more information is found out but way, way more importantly don't keep secrets. The ideal 40k is ONLY if both players know exactly what BOTH armies can do. Most people don't have that information hence the phrase "play by intent". Which is to say.... let's both prevent gotcha hammer from happening.
Playing by intead sounds just like 3-way communication
i think playing with clear communication is a good way to set up how we play the game.
100%
Playing with intent can be misused but I primarily use intent to explain what I’m doing. “My intent is to be 18 inches from you”, and this is important, “Please verify so we are in agreement I am”. That way it doesn’t come to your turn and my opponent is like oh yeah 10 inch charge now! And I’m like ??
using intent to clarify distance between 2 models is the most common use of it, and I think its important to do if your whole game plan and turn was set up to avoid a particular thing. It would be a shame if you played your whole turn and somehow it was in vain.
When playing by intent, using the example around 1:20 , what you're supposed to do is "I intend this unit not to get shot. CAN YOU IN ANY WAY SHOOT IT".
Not everyone has the time to learn everyone's army and all the details like detachment specific abilities. Because theyre announcing their intent. You, as the opponent should let them know if you could see and shoot them. And if you could, you should say "yes, if I did X I could still see them".
Playing by intent, at least locally for my area, is to avoid conflict by having both players agree on an outcome by discussing the requirements and possibilities for both armies. It should also mean to keep to your word as well when it comes to taking actions.
Your totally right, its about avoiding conflict. being completely open about your army's abilities is important, also if your open your opponent is more likely to do the same.
The other thing I do "by intent" is some conversation at the beginning of the game (primarily playing TSons) "Unless I say otherwise, I am choosing Sustained every turn for my Psychic attacks and Magnus is using -1D until I say otherwise".
I put tokens down to represent that, but I do think that is in the "intent" spectrum
Tokens are such an underused thing in this edition. I use one to mark the Oath of moment. because it lasts so long its good to remind my opponent that even in there fight phase its still going.
@@hyperspacehobbies tokens should be required for tournament play. Too many times mistakes/confusion happens, especially with orders, strats, special abilities, etc. I think 10th edition has mitigated this in a very positive way by having psychic and unit abilities built into the datacards but there are still many instances, like oath of moment, that need to to marked by tokens.
Super sick vid Lads. Never really thought about this topic this deep. You guys made very valid points and I will be using all this advice. Much love from the Island
Glad to be of service!!
One of my least favorite 'but we're playing by intent' moments comes about when I, as a world eater, have just had one of my tougher models (Angron, some X Eightbound) crack, and my opponent still has guns remaining on the platform they fired with.
Now I have to be the bad guy and say sorry pal, the remaining guns are firing into the warp-hole you just slammed my warlord into. Choosing to split fire is almost never natural.
Ohhh boy, If someone doesn't declare where each of the guns are firing before rolling the first dice, then the assumption is that they all fire at the first declared target. I wouldn't let someone choose new targets with the rest of there guns, just because one of the guns spiked damage and made the kill. You could also just force them to confirm "are you shooting all of the guns at Angry Ron?" even though its a bit annoying it does clarify in this situation. Then Promptly roll 3 6's and get that madman BACK ON THE TABLE!
Hey space marine Steve. We love these videos!
I kinda love them too! Talking 40k is one of my favorite passtimes haha
@@spacemarinesteve6057 It shows! Love the enthusiasm.
I intend to like and subscribe
Hmmm well watch out we've got some stratagems that might make you reconsider, wait, no please go ahead and sub haha
Shot is good in relation to the background , y’all just sat off-center 😂❤😂
That is exactly what happened hahaha
Ian's Right arm is FURIOUS at our Director of Photography, all the staff are upset, The production assistant and makeup are on a razers edge right now they cant take the stress. The arm threw a cinnamon mocha at an intern, its pretty tense at the studio right now.
@@hyperspacehobbies I just had to explain what was so funny to multiple people
Every time i hear intent, i hear, "i need insurance in case i fuck up and get caught out" and worse, now they place the guilt on you to make the call if you say no you cant do that.
Yea, exactly. The point of intent is to come to agreements between the two of you on what things are and how they might go to prevent arguments
The way I look at it is intent should only ever be about *specific* points, about the *current* board state.
"My intent is to move this unit as close as I can without leaving cover against your unit that is likely going to Overwatch"
Not *generic* points about a *future* board state.
"My intent is to have this character out of line of sight from any place you could move a model next turn"
YES! its not a prediction of the future its an agreement on the present.
intent for me is "I intend to be out of line of sight of X unit" with the hope that my opponent can help me get this situation for the sake of getting to that state as quick as possible, and then also avoid bumps by the understanding that me an my opponent got to. I agree that there is a lot of players that use it to play sloppy.
I think as long as you let your opponent disagree it’s fine. Like you cant steam roll them with what you want to have happen, it has to be mutual. Like in deployment you could say, I’m putting this guy here, the intent is he can’t be shot right now by X unit. If your op then gets the chance to challenge or correct you and you can reposition it so it works for you both. If you can’t hide the unit then that’s fine, you just have to accept it’s not possible.
Found intent is more important in Kill Team, that’s where I’ve come from and a lot of new players I know.
I think it’s one of those things that’s better for playing with friends, maybe not tournaments
Yeah I think that is the thing.
If you say "I move up so I am 9' away" but your opponent disagrees and says that you need to move the model up a bit, so It can be shot and not gets cover from that angle if placed properly.
Steve said it perfect, playing "cavalier" with the rules and model placement so that a pre-desired result is achieved despite the mathematical spacial positions of models on the table top. I have found that in tournaments this is abused and it feels like playing against someone that just wants their desired outcome to play out even though you have strategically countered their "special" moves.
Yup! Exactly! I very rarely let people get cavalier with movement and fight phase piles
Video idea: make a video on lesser known imperial agents IE 2 headed eagle guy and all those cool other units. The normal assassins are well covered but not so much for the others. Just a random thought, as always great video!
Funny I had a newer player tell me how much they thought playing by intent was great. I mentioned it is but, it doesn't get you things you couldn't have done. Like you can intend a lot of things but if you can't make the move or fit behind cover, intending doesn't get you that. Player just took it as a personal insult despite my never intending it to be a reflection on them personally. Most my gameplay has been positive with intent, I have however encountered people that don't really play that way. If you didn't say something beforehand it's a missed opportunity. I roll with it as I've played other games where it's just commonplace and not taken badly that missed opportunities are just that, missed opportunities. I try to be as cool as possible. One thing is I don't like to forgive mistakes that are something that would have been obviously good to do but there is clearly moves I've done based off your gamestate which are now bad due to the thing you'd like to correct. I think even having said intent does expire after a multiple dependent decisions.
I don’t do it for literally every action, but I verbalize a lot of my actions. “Moving X so I can shoot Y” or “I am being sure to be X inches away so you can’t move and charge even with your +2” bonus”. Nudging models happens, and no one wants to lose cause of a nudged model. Though I try not to overdo it it does help my games.
I also inform my oppenent of gotchas or deepstrikes I have so they don’t feel like they didn’t bring a full deck of cards if you will
Playing with intent involved good sportsmanship. If both players aren't practicing good sportsmanship then intent is either a crutch or something to be abused. As well, I personally specify with opponents that intent must be announced before you do it. If you say something after the fact then it's too late for intent to matter
My friend does this well with his mandrakes.
At the start of a game (especially tournaments) he tells his opponent, "I will take all my mandrakes off the table every turn". Then if the end of turn step is messy, theres no feels-bad about lifting them at the start of the next turn.
I think playing by intent is great, as you are essentially saying "I want us to communicate clearly about what is happening". The problem arises when someone uses "playing by intent" as a replacement for that very communication.
YES! if it is clearly stated at the start of the game then the communication line is open and he is forgiven if there is a mix-up.
I have to do this because I knock my models a lot so I premeasure everything
Oh ya i know what this is all about *glances at all the chains hanging off Be'lakor*
Don't know if this counts but we houserule all weapons go to the same unit unless stated otherwise.
Perfect, if its clearly communicated at the start of the game then there is no argument to be had mid battle. More house rules like this make for smoother game play.
Definitely played by "intent" even back in 3rd edition. My favorite players to enjoy a game with have always been respectful to agree on what the status on the board is in an active way. To me if you replace intent with being a good communicator then the arguments against it fall apart.
Start off by saying “My intent is to win this game”. Checkmate.
Boom lol works every time
Did... Did you just break the game?
I hope Lans arm is okay. 😅
Its frantically calling its agent, trying to see why it was cut out of this video. It was just edited out of Madam Web so this stings extra hard.
I've gone up against people who really misuse the "intent" to the point where they straight up move models during my shooting phase. It's when it gets to that point that I get really annoyed, you can intend things as much as you want, but once your turn is done, it's done.
Yup! I have seen stuff like this too, its rare in my experience, but it can happen.
Bottom line, protect your fun! Intent is great when it helps you all play more precisely, not if it helps somebody play cavalier
Exactly. "Intent" is for accurate and fast play. When you clarify with your opponent and premeasure all the possibilities and ask the right questions. Hyper clarification.
It helps those times when a mini gets bumped or maybe a mini has a spear that should've been more tucked. When you say outloud and get the agreement from your opponent and break out the tape measure. It let's us both know that guy is touching that objective, this charge is 11", or this pocket of cover makes me unshootable right?
Hyper clarification, Hyperspace Hobbies *Explosion*
I always tend to do this with my big winged Chaos Daemons, they just get clipped and bumped way to much by accident. When I havnt done it and they get bumped by accident its just a confusing nightmare.
@@hyperspacehobbies absolutely. I'd rather you tell me exactly what you're doing with a big demon so I know. You dont have to fiddle with every spike and spine, you dont have to worry if the model falls over or gets pulled. There is absolutely no vagueness in the table state and we can get on with the fun stuff of the game
Dose anyone know the Ruling if Mortarioin. Or another Death Guard unit with in 6” attacks a Space Marines unit with Amour of contempt. Dose it worsening the AP or do the ignore they modifiers
yes, ignoring modifiers to characteristics works with Armor of Contempt as well as any halving damage rules or -1 damage effects as weapon characteristics are also considered characteristics of the model
As Tyranids player I really hate LoS shenanigans like “oh I can see the tip of your tail, I can shoot you” and stuff like that. My intent is always measuring from the base of the model, it’s the whole reason why bases are a thing
Going back to this one just to say my first opponent used the word intent all game. I gave him a 5/5 player score. Great game and I got trounced.
RIP Ian's right arm....
It was his favorite arm... but alas... it's gone. Chopped off.
Lost to the warp, Ian's right arm is now the 5th chaos god.
LETS FRIGGGGGGIN GOOOOOOOOOO!!
WOOOOO!
YEAAAAAAAA
I like the idea of playing by intent to avoid the gotchas. For example if you put dudes in a building I will generally tell someone I am 1" off the wall preventing fighting through the wall and preventing you from entering the wall"
Or do you agree that X unit can or cannot see Y unit
Or asking your opponent my intent is to move this unit here do you have any reactive moves if I do that? If I deep strike do you have anything like auspex scan.
There certainly can be a loose way of playing which is negative I like it from a playing by agreement. Do we agree im 8 inches from X.
If you want to play wargaming while camping in the big outdoors, you do you, in tents.
*hides a smirk* "Hey Ian are you laughing at that"-Steve
"pfft, no"-Ian holding in his shame and love of puns.
I’m newly returned to Warhammer, and playing with intent seems largely a silly crutch. If I try to hide a unit but enemy moves so they can see it, it’s something to learn from. Not go “oh actually I want an advantage by reacting to your move…”
Playing with intent to me is playing while safeguarding yourself from the inaccuracies of the game by informing your opponent with board state situations.
In other words, things left unspoken are trusted to be intended.
I don't believe that playing by intent is easier. It will punish you for things you don't mention. Things unsaid when playing by intent is assumed to be intentionally unspoken for.
For example. My opponent places a Void Dragon behind ruins sticking out barely, but says nothing. The intent is as placed. So when I counter deploy and move to LOS of it on my turn. My opponent cannot just say "I intended for my Void Dragon to be hidden fully, he has the space". This is a reactive play, not intentional play.
I do not give him the chance to move his model as we are several steps ahead of deployment now, in a game where we said we will play by intent.
So basically, if your opponent deepstrikes 9" away, moves 6, and you dispute if they are 3" away while they were only intending to move toward you, you're a dingus. It's meant to be played as a video game, but manually. Certain things can just be assumed.
Stephen box has the best example of a player using intent to benefit them and be a detriment to their opponent.
The issue with intent is its far fo easy to abuse and their are far to many players who abuse it and turn the game into a poor experience for their opponent. Like no playing with intent does not mean i have to let you walk all over me.
Totally abusable, but also can hep for a smother game with increased communication. as long as everyone is on the same side.
SM Steve needs to get his caboose out to Cali and face a Titan or three... Quit ducking Adrian, Steeeeve.
Oh the gauntlet has been thrown!
I feel like this is a trip I'll need to make - hit up Disneyland while I'm down there.... mmmm... giant Mickey Mouse shaped Pretzels... perfectly pairs with the sweet taste of VICTORY!
Let me just tell you from a new players prospective... I would not of gone through all the trouble of buying, building and painting without knowing I was ONLY going to play by intent. I'm not interested in the secret gotcha hammer at the local store where they intentionally withhold knowledge from you the entire time as much as possible in order to suprise you on the table.
I don’t understand what you mean. What do you mean by gotcha? I feel it’s overused. For example. You move, I over watch and people say that’s a gotcha. Is it? Well I wouldn’t have moved if I knew you were going to over watch! I didn’t have to decide if I was going to until now.
@@lightarisen8430 I knew you could over watch so by definition that's not a gotcha. A gotcha would be purposefully withholding information... the opponent asks is there something I should watch out for? You have any special abilities that are out of the norm? And the guy intentionally doesn't tell him until he springs it on him after you've committed... that's a gotcha. Maybe that's a fight first on a character and the guy didn't know the guy charges and then finds out about fight first AFTER its too late instead of the guy saying hey just so you know this unit has fight first in the start of the charge phase right.
It's the whole "well, you didn't ask me" thing that could lead to escalation pretty quickly.... just don't keep any secrets when you're going through the phases and there's no issues.
@@lightarisen8430 No but having a stratagem that lets you do some random shit you'd never know about is. Like giving a unit stealth when targeted by ranged attacks. Or allowing your unit to respawn when killed. So on. I wouldn't have fired half my army into your unit it i knew you could just spend 2 cp and set it up again next turn. That's a gotcha.
@@Optionvideo209 that makes sense. I would definitely consider withholding that you have fight first a rude move.
@@polus134 exactly... you got it. Both players should understand what both players armies can do. That's why we briefly go over army lists before we start and so we already kind of know the "specialty" abilities and so on. You briefly tell them about your strategems... fight on death or -1 to wound or whatever and not only that... but as you're playing the game you should be reminding them "hey dude remember this unit can do this or that" when your opponent is in the relevant phase.
The issue is the guys who stay completely quiet and gain advantage, serious advantage from staying quiet right.
I've never played this way as it leads to more arguments and bad feels among friends. If you forgot something or didn't do something right, tough tiddys live and learn and move on, you messed up that's on you not me. It's not my job to keep track of stuff for your army and the opposite is true, know your game and deal with your failures it's only a game and at the end of the day don't bitch bout it. Lol
Yeah, if some is crying over spilt milk it can be disruptive to the game. If you make your bed you've got to lay in it.
Is this a north American thing? Been two majors and several RTT's and literally never seen this
Maybe It is but ive seen it on streams from around the world
'playing with intent' has no place in a tournament scene - tournaments need to be structured and by the book. Intent is fine for home games, because really home games are more akin to practise.
I also try to remind my opponent of abilities to try to avoid mis-steps.. "did you intend to uppy-downy those guys before we move on? " sorta thing
Yes, and it takes work on all sides, It is very much a game of communication.
Even in a tournament IMHO it has a place to just speed up uncontested obvious things - like, in the 4:41 example "my intent is that all of these guys can get into combat", if it's not clear that they can all fit, it would be an entirely reasonable to response to say "hey, I'm not totally sure that they can, try to actually do it", but in many situations it is obviously clear that it can be done and so it's reasonable to acknowledge that the opponent can do that and not go through the motions since they'll be repositioned (or killed) right after the rolls anyway.
Seems like it can be abused to much. I say No
It does ride a fine line between being abusable and helping the games communication out to clearly state a fact on the battlefield.