How do you play Infinity?

So, lets do this.

Obviously I play intent, and I play very competitively.
I believe both players should be able to know precisely what the models on the table (HD excluded obviously) can see at all times, and I think that both players should work together to discuss orders and movement to help each other achieve what they desire with a minimum of fuss or argument.

I think I've clocked 7 of the last 9 tournies Ive played in this year across 3-4 different meta's, and probably win 90% of the games I play. Given I play an average of 2 games a week thats a pretty high throughput.
Im not saying this to toot my own horn or claim to be the best, there are a number of players in my metas against who I consider games a crap shoot, with an at best a 50:50 win ratio.

The reason I'm pointing this out is so that you understand, I play a lot, and I play well, with an in-depth knowledge of the rules and a demonstrable understanding of the implications of those rules.

Im not a WAAC player however, I hold myself and my own play probably to harder standards than my opponents, I dont do takebacks myself and I am more than happy to wear the ramifications of pie slicing and intent, including letting my opponent know what my units can see well in advance of them moving into LOF ect.

I think Infinity only works as a fun and challenging game on a fundamental level when both players work together to ensure the game flows, and there are a few major reasons for this I'll list bellow.

Cooperation:
At its heart, the main reason I and many others play infinity is because of the good will and attitude of the community at large, rules like intent, which are based around cooperation to help each other achieve what they wish within the bounds of what is possible within the rules mean that even at the bleeding edge of competition, Infinity remains at its heart a conversation between gamers.

The alternative to this as I see it is a game where you are actively undermining your opponent such as games workshop games or privateer press games. While not the sole reason for the community attitude, having intent being the rules underpins and reinforces the community behavior.

Learning Curve:
Infinity is already a hard game to get into. Beginners that come into the game face an up hill battle simply due the the nuances of Infinity mechanics and the earned experience of their opponents, usually theres a break moment where they get hammered by AD or TO or some other unit/tactic, and then have to decide if they wish to learn the game or give up and play something else. This rate of attrition is already fairly high, enough to be considered something of a running joke in some meta's. Adding an extra layer of "experienced players only" which non-intent play requires limits the accessibility of this game to new players.

As one of those experienced players I know I can estimate 4 and 8 inches with mm accuracy, this I've learned from playing hundreds, upon hundreds of games. More casual players or beginners cannot do this, they just dont have the experience, furthermore, playing on the tables available in different meta's will further skew such players ability to estimate distances and positioning.

Playing with intent, where what a model can see is open information and I work with my opponent to help them achieve a placing that is both physically possible and within the realms of achievable outcome, means that the difference between a top tier player of the game and a casual player is closer, tightening the competition, giving everyone and increased ability to compete on similar levels and meaning that every game is interesting. As such i feel increasing the gap between top tier players and beginners/casual players would be fundamentally bad for the health of the game.

Time Saving:
Intent saves time.
Coming to an agreement with your opponent about how an order will play out (minus the specific skills being declared or the presence of hidden deployment) before moving miniatures, spending orders or arguing after invested resources, means that the game runs smoothly in as fast a manner as possible. It also allows you to agree that certain actions (such as move-moving multiple orders to get across the table) are possible ahead of time as opposed to moving single short skills at a time and checking for AROs each order.
I'd estimate that without intent the average infinity game runs on the order of 2 to 3 hours, whereas with intent you can run a game in an hour to an hour and a half.

Its a Miniatures Game/I Can See the Table:
At its core, Infinity is a miniatures game, one played with elaborate tables and highly detailed minis. The entire exercise is a spectacle. Non-intent relies on the idea that you are unable to visually look at the table in a certain level of detail (though that levle varies from argument to argument).
To me its perfectly logical that a game with physically placed miniatures on the table, who have specifically defined angles of visibility means that you should be looking at the table. as such intent and agreeing with my opponent is merely a means fo verifying that we are at an understanding over what each of the models of the table can see. This just feels natural for the game.

The Moving Model is in Control:
Similar to the above, it seems unnatural to me to tell a player that they are not allowed to be in precise control of how they choose to move their models on the table. The reactive player has already moved/positioned their models and they are unable to change that (dodge excluded) the moving active models however should, logically to me always be able to move exactly where the player in control of them wants them to be, if they arent, that too me adds 2 differing levels of precision to the game and as such imbalances the game in favour of the models that have the high level of precise knowledge (the reactive pieces).

Accessibility:
Touched on in the learning curve comment but expanded upon here. By refusing to work with my opponent and requiring them to live or die on their ability to position a model on the table or determine what models can see solely by eye, you punish people for their physical motor skill. Im not talking about edge cases where people have Parkinson disease or the like, but the much more common cases, such as shortsightedness (which is common among gamer's).
As a competitive player I want to beat my opponent based on their mental decisions, not their physical capabilities (I play other sports for that).

I'm not cheated as the reactive player:
perhaps one of the biggest failings of those arguing for intent based play, is the habit of arguing from the perspective of that active player, this means that people with differing opinions tend to view intent as a means of removing or cheating them out of ARO's they would otherwise be able to take.

This is in my mind a fallacy and not really an issue with intent. Discussing what models can see before orders are declared, in an open and truthful manner with my opponent works both ways, many times as the active player I have pointed out to my opponent that his reactive models may ARO from a particular point.

Furthermore as a reactive player I am understanding that I have established my positions to the best of my ability during my active turn, and it is now my opponents chance to try and undermine my defenses, Im more than happy for this to be give and take, and indeed strongly feel that it should be.


In Conclusion:
So thats what I feel are the strongest arguments outside of the rules for why Intent is good for the game.

Ultimately I feel what models can see should not only be open information that is shared truthfully among players, and players should help each other achieve and under take their orders in a manner that is consistent with the rules and open information (this obviously excludes zones of controls, trigger areas, cautious movements and HD)

EDIT:

@psychoticstorm has asked me to detail out the steps of an order in how I play, therefore I would like too here.

Example of an Order:
1) Firstly I ask my opponent who can see my model in its current location, I look at the table and ask if my opponents models that are present on the table can see other locations as well, typically thinking and asking for locations a few orders ahead. Discussing with my opponent if they agree with the LOF to these positions before it becomes an issue.

I do this now so that all the open information is agreed upon at the earliest possible time before any resources have been spent, neither player wants to be spending 4 orders before having a disagreement over LOF.

2) Then I place a silly down where I intend to move too, confirming with my opponent that the sillie is in a location is such that only troops that I want LOF too have LOF to that location.

I both expect my opponent to help with this as per the etiquette rules and would return the favour to my opponent, telling them to move backwards or forwards as appropriate.

3) Then I declare that I will move my model to the location marked by the sillie and along which path it will travel.

For example: I move into base to base contact with this piece of terrain and then slide along it to the location marked by the sillie.

4) I then measure the distance (and only now) and ensure that I have sufficient move to reach the silly, If I do not then I am short and must deal with the final position, even if that means there is no LOF.

5) The reactive player declares AROs, including any hidden deployment, at which point the second short skill is declared, If it is movement it follows the structure detailed in steps 1-4.

At this point, Mines trigger and the template is laid down, If I have misjudged the distance I cop the mine hit.
ZOC ARO's are either declared now or not, If they are declared now and are out then they get no ARO in the resolution step as per the rules.

6) If at any point I do not ask my opponent what the LOF is and the discussion about what units can see where is not undertaken before the movement is declared (as per steps 1-2) then I as the active player wear the consequences for not being clear in the description of my movement path.

@Koni @Bostria

 

I prefer to Play by Intent, since most of the time the players make mistakes in all positions (in one tournament, both myself and my opponent totally forgot about Machaon being exposed to enemy fire, or even the -1B and -3 BS band in the middle of the table, for example), so it's a way to keep things on course.

I tend to draw the line on the order expenditure, however: if you move a troop to shoot at one of mine (or viceversa) and are exposed to others, I can let you make the movement for minimal exposure (if possible) or even change targets, but not "the troop won't do any of that, I will move that other one", since "the intent" was to move the first troop and expose her to enemy fire to hunt one enemy.
And it wouldn't be the first time I lose a game because I cannot go around the table (I would disturb 2-3 other tables to do so) and forgot about one enemy piece/camo marker. That happens, and while I tend to give warnings to my opponent about things like that when I think they are forgetting about my troops, I do not demand from anybody to do the same.

@psychoticstorm I would like to suggest a poll in the opening of the thread (if possible) with choices of "PBI" and "PAP".

 

Intent. Our way of intent is pretty much just helping the other person determine LoF (to any point on the table). I've never seen "infinitely fine" pie slicing happen because no one places all of their guys in base to base, but if it came up, we would allow it.

Edit: Not trying to bash non-PBI playstyle, but I don't really see any benefits too it, because from what I understand, it just seems more likely to cause arguments without changing anything else.

 

Not reading this novel of a thread but this is about how we play.

We ask if we can draw LoS but actually need to be able to place the model. There's no time limit but if you waffle too long people start joking and you get embarrassed and stop trying to cheese it.

 

Intent, or as I've taken to rephrasing it... Play by Consent.

I've experienced this arc too. When I started playing, it was with roughly a dozen other players a bit over 6 years ago. Infinity was gaining a small amount of traction in the US, but Operation Icestorm wasn't out yet.

No tournaments were being regularly hosted in California (or for anywhere else really, except for early events run by Magno and the Old Guard of organizers, before the WarCor program had been created.)

Coming from the mechanical precision of competitive Warmachine/Hordes, we played very strictly with PAIL. It wasn't called that at the time... It wasn't called anything... We just thought that's how the game was played. We actually began losing players, because individuals were getting frustrated when they spent 5+ Orders hiking a model to a key point of the table, only to accidentally nudge out too far and get blown away performing a maneuver that their fingers or depth perception didn't allow them to execute on the tabletop.

Over time, we realized that the game wasn't particularly that fun or rewarding if we played that way. The unforgiving nature of Infinity meant it felt awful if you were carefully tiptoeing your way through the active turn, hoping you didn't f*ck up by moving too far, while pausing between every short skill to circle around to your opponent's side to check LoF from their perspective. Since we played on long tables too, every short skill sometimes meant walking 20 or 30 feet around the table to check from your opponent's perspective.

Eventually, we realized the benefits of playing collaboratively. "Hey, can you check LoF for me?" "So, how far can I move before any of your visible minis can see me?"

The result was very rewarding. Now, as a Warcor in one of the US most competitive areas (we had 5 players in the US ITS top 20 last year) I'm thrilled that Intent-based play has a role in both competitive and casual play. It's not just for the ultra competitive, or the casual... It's (speaking from personal experience) a more rewarding way to play the game.

 

Im not sure I follow.

What mechanical interactions of the game?

You've clearly seen how people think the game plays (or plays best), I move here who can see?/where do I have to move to achieve this outcome do you think?

Apart from those questions the actual movement on the table is carried out like any move skill, making the declaration after asking, measuring, moving the model in the manner described and then getting on with the previously discussed AROs+any AROs from hidden deployed units/mines or ZOC that may have been misjudged, then short skill and finally dice rolling and resolution.

Nothing described above either breaks the game balance or violates the rules as they are written, its a means of playing within them to work with your opponent.

On a side note: Heres the thing about pie slicing and reactive AROs, as a reactive player I understand that I fundamentally do not and cannot have the initiate outside of HD, I cannot force my opponent to engage my models the way I desire, because I am not the one moving.
Sliced AROs arent AROs Im entitled too because the table is a complex thing built with multiple means of egress. while two models may be lined up such that slicing them becomes hard without intent, that will only ever be one corner. attacking them from a different angel will lead to obviously different results, not the least because the models will block LOF through each other.​

Getting back to my main point, I honestly I have to wonder if you a fishing for the answer "Laser lines are used to check what models can see" But i have to tell you, often times they probably arent, and they arent even necessary to the methods of played described above because ultimately you could play with your opponent the same way by eye.
It would be a tragedy to see CB pushed into declaring collaboration and good sportsmanship illegal, or to see them try to do that by deciding accurate information about what a model can see is hidden info.

 

From context, PS is pretty clearly talking about how people play the game, as in how they interpret the game mechanics.

 

I thought that was the exact opposite of what he wanted, he specifically asked us to shy away from discussing the rules

 

right ok, I'll edit my original post later today then.

And I apoologise for misunderstanding your intentions

 

thank you, I saw your post in the morning but decided to wait and formulate what I wanted to say in more detail throughout the day, I'll do the same with an example of how I personally execute an order and added it to the post under a new heading.

 

My English isn't good enough to argument such a complex matter... But I agree with every single word of the message I've quoted!!! Was quite an emotion read someone else write down exactly what I feel about this aspect of the game!!!

 

I’m 80% on the intent side but I worry that it makes certain mathematically and technically physically possible pie slices automatic that would otherwise be practically impossible.

I’ll try to create some diagrams later tonight to show what I mean but one sentence would get me to intent play 100%

But the scenario that most worries me is a corner with two troopers in base to base face the corner about 2” away from the edge. The leading one is prone.

I find it unfortunate if the LOF rules create a situation where either by skillful placement *OR* intent the active player can peak around the corner 1mm and shoot one with out taking a BS attack ARO from both.

If that is possible by the rules then intent play makes it automatic. Play it as it lies would be much riskier to try pulling it off so people might not even try it.

My preference would not be to prevent intent play but to make the LOF rules better such that this doesn’t happen mathematically.

 

With that in mind I thought I would edit my original post (#3 in this thread) and give a full "real" example of how my group plays the game.

I don't mention pie-slicing directly as it is an indirect consequence of how we play. I personally haven't encountered a situation where something on the table is mathematically possible but difficult to do without Intent Play but I acknowledge that some in my gaming group would assume that if that situation does occur they can Intent away the math/precise placement to ensure the desirable Active Player outcome. I personally agree with that stance simply because it doesn't occur often (or at all as I have seen) and again reduces possible arguments.

 

In our small community, we usually play by intent. Even in a Tournament setting, if a player declares his/her intention before making a move, we even help with making sure that the intention is met. If no intention is declared, then what has transpired is what was intended. Most of our players work this way. We have one that likes to "declare a different intent" when things don't go his way, but fortunately, he rarely plays.

 

I play INFINITY as if I am obliged to have divulged every bit of open information that is relevant to what my opponent is doing in their active turn, without prompt (Being prompted sure makes it easier to comply though!). When holding myself to this obligation, the only reason an opponent would ever want an LOF related takeback is because I have not been open enough, therefore I have no reservations about allowing it. I do not expect every player to be so actively cooperative with me when I am the active player, but thankfully they have been for the most part. I do expect them to let me change an order (gasp! a takeback!) if I have asked a question and the answer later turned out to be false. I would also expect a judge to side with me on that. Again it hasn't happened yet.

As I sometimes teach professionally, I think one of the greatest thing about full disclosure and full cooperation is that you don't have to change anything about how you play INFINITY to teach it. If you believe that you should be able to take advantage of dumb mistakes, like an opponent moving into the LOF of a marker they didn't notice before declaring their move, you have to make a choice between playing the game the correct way as you see it and producing a bad learning experience, or compromising.

Although it is not required by the rules, I also try to prevent ignorant mistakes before they happen, which is sometimes tough. An example is when I was playing against a new player who was non-cooperative. They thought it was better to keep their intentions hidden for some reason. They spent three orders moving something up the board for a purpose that was unclear to me, before throwing a smoke grenade in the field of view of my Bao link with the intention of moving through the smoke or something on the next order. When they went to throw the smoke I warned them that it wouldn't work against the Bao, and they were annoyed that they didn't know sooner. They blamed the game for being too complex.

Did I tell them "these guys can see through smoke" or did I say "these guys have MSV2", was I even asked? I don't remember, but I probably should have made sure he knew at deployment. I think I let him undo all his orders, but I wish he'd asked me sooner about the capabilities of the guys he planned to attack, as we both would have benefited from that cooperation.

Overall, INFINITY isn't very fun when playing against people who are shit at it. In fact it is a chore at times. A good player is never going to throw smoke in front of my MSV2, he's never going to slice the pie wrong, he's not going to not notice my guys and walk in front of them, he's not going to forget to ask about anything, he will be able to deduce my LT unless I have invested in concealing it, he can judge if I have models off the table, he can work out which of my camo are mines at deployment. I don't want extra help beating hopeless players, I want them to be good at it so I can play good games. With mutual cooperation, rules-mandated or otherwise, everyone I am playing against has my knowledge of the game or better. I can only rely on list-building, strategy and adaptability for a shot at winning.

 

This is the example of what I worry about. I would prefer a situation in which the blue model can't slice the pie in this situation.

Do our intent players play it that this pie is sliceable thus this type of defense is pointless?

Because I'd wonder if there was a feasible change to the LOF rules that would allow this defense to be used. That would set my concerns about intent play to 0.

 

That would indeed be pointless in all the games I play. To get 2 AROs on the fusilier, the rear alg needs to be positioned on the line you drew. Otherwise, not only is it phenomenally easy to get a demonstrable single slice just by using your eyes, but also defenses like that are a great way to lose 2 guys in one order to a 5 point warband.