Social Bidding with Intent

It's precisely the ability to pre-measure in the current iteration of the game and the format of open information vis-a-vis the understanding that technically all ranges are known factors that has created the issue of intent, and players use that as part of the social engineering package of bids with their opponent to gain incremental advantage. Speaking as a TO for coming up on 30 years and having seen editions of 40k and WHFB that presumed no ranges and indeed had stuff like guess ranges and hidden information like wargear and so on, the version we're playing in now where everything is always open information has created the problem of intent.

you didn't used to have an expectation of being able to always know a threat range for a charge or how far a model could move to gain an angle for LOS on a unit, so you just moved models and when stuff happened you checked. Not to say that the open information format isn't better for the game, but it does create its own issues in terms of how players approach and interact with the rules and the mores around interacting with their opponent.

if in the first turn, your opponent says it's my intent that these guys will be hidden from your shooting next turn, and you oblige by looking at your models and doing the math in your head and where they could move to get a line of fire and say 'yeah that makes sense', your opponent has made a bid with you and you've accepted it, in effect agreeing to the way they want to play. Then in turn 3 they move some models and say my intent is to not be in your threat range, but when it comes around to the shooting you find you're actually in range by a little bit, then they say oh well it was my intent that they weren't that close and shuffles the models back. There's another bid, and it's harder to reject it by that point since you've already effectively agreed to play the game 'their way'.

There's validity to some forms of this type of play - confirming if someone meant to have their model touching terrain for purposes of LOS as they move is a relevant act, but even then in that example it's better classified as confirming a fact, to use Sid's language. The notion of intent and confirming a player's actions makes sense, but the notion of intent as a backstop for uncertain play; a 'get out of jail free card' if someone realizes they're in the wrong place; or, at worst, a way for a player to allow the game to progress, gain information they would not have had, then have an opportunity to make a bid for their opponent to allow them to go back and fix a misplay, does not.

Napoleon said 'never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake', he didn't say 'hey Wellington mibad Aulard's wasn't supposed to be so close to your 1st Brigade cavalry so ima scoot them back just a touch' ;P