thoughts on Play by intent

Finally someone understands what we fight for :tongueclosed:

Seriously though - how about not taking such jabs at each other? Personally I don't really care if I'm being called part of the "suck it up" crowd, or a player who likes to somehow spring a "gotcha" on opponents, but as every ad hominem such remarks are detrimental to the discussion.

We won't be able to adress it, because the issue comes not from the misunderstanding over rules - which can be interpreted either way - but from deffering gameplay philosophies. Some people prefer the game where players can make positioning mistakes. Others prefer it when players work together so that such mistakes won't happen. Both ways have their pros and cons. What exactly forces us to agree on one way to play them all?

It's likely that CB won't adress it exactly because it allows different groups to play it their way. Or maybe they'll clarify it either way in N4, who knows.

 

I think that's one of the best comments on why CB hasn't or won't officially comment. It's such a divisive subject, partly because it is such an undefined thing, like fluff vs hardcore in other systems. Why alienate a potentially huge customer base possibly losing sales.

However it could be good to clarify how and when LoF is checked as that already has a standing in the rules.

As you say, intent or not seems more of a play philosophy.

 

Maybe the muchachos at CB are at odds over this too. If I have understood things correctly, it will eventually be settled with a duel -- a Trial by Combat -- between two heavily armored champions.

Anyone know which weapons each CB'er uses?

 

Actually, yes.

It's Private Information obviously, but to demonstrate my good sportsmanship I can tell you that Fernando is long-enamoured of a lightweight full plate suit and currently practicing with a hand-and-a-half straight sword in a traditional Spanish style that involves continual stepping and whirling.

It goes without saying that I muttered the usual doubts and cynicism that properly accompanies such a discussion, and so didn't catch the name of the style. In truth however - and despite my modest achievements with the single-edged Morat Duelling Sword (Mahkaliii!), I will admit it looks ... useful.

Is anyone up for tickets?

 

Yes, but all this time you'd said I could trust you, and now it's my name they're chanting in the dark rituals of their Facebook covens!

 

Meh. There's a standing rotation, you've just earned yourself a place on the roll... and whilst they chant away, precious little actually happens...

 

So you say. But every time I declared a BS attack today I rolled exactly 17. Again and again. And it's not like I was playing Pan O in good Range - this was Morats. 17s with Morats! That's a Facebook curse for sure.

 

Yo, por supuesto.

Somewhere on the old forum, or maybe the DataSphere... Ah here http://data-sphere.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=316 Yasbir discusses some of this. There are a few photos he posted somewhere too of CBers going all SCAdian. Oh, and this YouTube channel of un tal Alberto Adal. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNdn51I_yywE-87JtHxyNpw I reckon a fair number of the people in those videos are readily recognized.

Yes, de-railing the topic. Et alors?

 

It's ok, 'Harvest; we can chat amongst ourselves, the rest are all out in their Facebook groups doing their Dark Chanting.
They'll be back tomorrow no doubt, and my guess is that @psychoticstorm had better have his finger on the buzzer!

 

Except I don't really think they do.
I think the anti intent play will force you to better train yourself to play slowly and always keep checking lof before you spend an order... But when you get used to it the game will play slower and with more arguments but otherwise the same.

 

Eh, tanto faz... not as if it hadn't already devolved/derailed. After all, we can either play by the rules as designed and written, or we can house rule it, but I, personally, believe it's best to be honest about what we're doing.

 

That's all fine and dandy if an entire group is actually in agreement. If not, we just end up with lots of separate instances of someone being bullied into playing a way they disagree with, alienated, or whatever. So, we essentially end up with the same effect as if they just made their intent clear.

We've made it through the codification of other divisive mechanics, why wouldn't we make it through this one?

 

I have avoided entering back into this discussion on purpose (for a variety of reasons at this point), but I just want to reiterate that everyone really just wants to know what the rules really say on the topic, clearly and definitively, so if someone is house-ruling something they are doing it with full knowledge of that. I sincerely doubt anyone here actually cares much about how someone who they will never play against plays the game.

 

I meant to stay out of this, but have too say that I 100% disagree with this, and if this becomes the way infinity is played the game will straight up die. I am not being dramatic, I believe that this type of approach to the game will ruin it.

I believe that the beauty of infinity is in the strategy and a little bit of luck, and it is a narrative experience. I describe what I want an order to do (I want to slide along the wall in cover, see that model, and slide back) and both players work together to achieve this.

If this is the way infinity is going I can always switch to Aristeia! But I think that is not how is should be played, and I also believe the rules back me up! You can always check LoS, so why be a jerk and not tell your opponent AROs? It slows down the game for no reason.

Infinity is a big part of my life. I love this game. I will fight this attitude towards the game with everything I have.

Intent IS Infinity.

 

Can you extent this sense of intent to include the following situation:

>My opponent moves a unit with the first half of his order.

>I scan the board, don't think any of my guys can see over the terrain because it looks like its high enough, shrug and conclude I don't think anyone can see.

>Second half of his order he declares BS attack on a unit I didn't think he could see. He proceeds to start making normal rolls.


Obviouslly my intent is to take all available AROs, right? Should my opponent have piped up that he could see or is the onus on me and I shouldn't feel annoyed by this gotcha? Because it did feel like a gotcha. This was a tournament setting by the way, though I was definitely not going to end up near the top. My opinion is that it's poor sportsmanship in a game like this with so much to consider, but I suspect the rules would come down on his side?

 

Your opponent 100% cheated IMO.

Line of sight is public information. Attempting to keep public information private is against the rules.

 

If your position is hypocritical, it's hypocritical. If someone uses a marker to indicate movement and then doesn't move to the marker, it's an illegal move and should be rectified.

 

Did you actually ask your opponent if he believed he had gained LoF on anyone, or did you just say "No AROs" ? This isn't really an "intent" question. If someone LIED to you that there was no LoF, then you said no ARO, and then in the same order he claimed LoF, call a TO, because that's an obvious violation of the game. Otherwise, this sounds more like a communication problem.

 

While true that we haven't resolved the issue, I do believe we have made a bit of progress in seeing where the line of thinking from each side comes from.

What is lacking is a coherent, non-reactionary post in an argumentative* Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format that is followed up with a counter-Claim-Evidence-Reasoning. It's as I said in the Biotechvore thread (sorry to bring it up ) on the last forums. Arguments tend to go around in circles because the posts presenting the claim, the evidence, and the reasoning are all separated with interjections of ad hominem, ClaimWithNoEvidence, and emotionally-charged colorful language, so the argument itself gets lost as it's presented incompletely.

*Argumentative in the sense of presenting an argument ("that's just contradiction!" "No, it isn't."), not confrontational.

 

I agree for the most part. However, I don't think we should downplay the relevance this has to trans-community nature of infinity. Many of us participate in significantly large and diverse gaming regions. Others play the same handful of people in their garage/living room. I'm willing to bet more of us who are active here on the forum fall into the former category, where you can't really be sure that a person is someone you will never play against.