thoughts on Play by intent

Guys please keep it calm.

 

A miscommunication is one thing. If I say "no ARO" and my opponent thinks I meant "I have an ARO, but I'm choosing not to do anything" then that's a communication problem, not a rule interaction.

That's why I typically say "No, I don't believe any of my units have AROs. Before you declare your second short skill, do you believe your miniature has Line of Fire to one of my units?"

At that point, it's not a rule debate: it's a discussion about whether two units have Line of Fire to one another, which is open information.

However, you need to make sure your opponent understands that you both need to figure that out, and not let him rush into declaring his second short skill. Just like your opponent has a responsibility to pause, and seek a clear ARO declaration from you. For you to declare an ARO, you need to determine that there's an ARO. To determine if you have an ARO, sometimes it's necessary to have a conversation. Make sure you pause the game to have the conversation, before your opponent commits to finishing his order.

 

How did we come to the conclusion that that the rules for Gaming Etiquette in the rulebook isn't a rule?

 

We didn't. At the same time we also know that Superfluid did not do his side of that blurb. He never asked his opponent therefore nothing compelled his opponent to tell him the Open Information he was entitled to ask. While I was corrected that there are more than one case where Open Information must be disclosed there is nothing stating that Open Info must be given any other time, unless asked of course.

 

we havent, it could be called purple monkey dishwasher, its still the rules.

Heres my take on all this

Lof is specifically

"LINE OF FIRE (LOF)
Line of Fire (LoF) is the criterion by which players determine
whether a trooper can see his target. LoF is an imaginary
straight line between a trooper and his potential target.
In Infinity, troopers have a LoF angle of 180º, that is, they
can see with the front half of their base. For a trooper to be
able to draw LoF to his target, these conditions must be met:
» The target must be within the trooper’s front 180º arc.
» The trooper must be able to see a part of his target at least
the size of its head.
» LoF must not be obstructed by other troopers or by pieces
of scenery. "

This includes potential LOF as per the second sentence, therefore we can determine that LOF is not limited to a troops current location.
Furthermore, when coupled with the following rule about checking LOF before the declaration of an order, we can deterimine also that LOF may be checked before the order is declared.

"Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers
on the table can be cumbersome. It is perfectly acceptable
for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of
Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before
declaring it."

Therefore, given LOF can be a "Potential target" and it can be determined that it is acceptable to find what LOF would potentially disrupt the order before declaring it, then placing a silly should be sufficient to check the LOF to a position you are potentially going to move to.
On a side note, the "existing LOF" can easily be understood to be referring to models that are already present on the table (Those that arent in HD and therefore whose LOF is not open information) and the unmoving positions of the reactive troops.

Hence we have
Active: "who can see if I am here?"
Reactive: "X,Y,Z" OR in opposition to the ettiquete blurb "Find out yourself"

And hence we come back to working with your opponent to allow them to execute their move in a manner that is possible, timely and sportsmanly as per the rules being to me the logical conclusion.

EDIT: It should be noted, When I am the reactive trooper this obviously also holds, its how I play the game from both sides and given the Open Information nature of LOF I will endeavor to inform my opponent of who could potentially ARO their units during their order declaration. I have not found this in particular hampering to reactive turn play nor has this openness and willingness to help my opponent achieve the movement they desire hindered my competitive play. In fact I believe it means I play a tighter, stronger game and so too does my opponent and we can do this with less arguments and in a faster manner than if the onus was solely on the active player.

 

Sorry, but I think that's about as good a "strategy" as falsely claiming you have diarrhea in order to go to the bathroom and stall for time. "What do you mean you're actually super regular, and your stool is as firm as a hard boiled egg? You totally got me with that sportsmanlike strategy. It's cool, I didn't choose to go second because I wanted the last turn or anything."

Asking your opponent to turn around so you can take an HD pic isn't even in the rules. It's just something players have made up for the sake of accountability and fair play. Exploiting it like you described actually goes against the entire spirit of why it's done in the first place, considering he could have simply made a note in private like the rules describe, and maintained the mystery without effectively lying to you.

 

Personally, I put it on each player to say, as the other is deploying: "Hey, I'm going for a 5 minute walk away from the table. Please use that time to manage any hidden deployment or AD determinations."

That way, every player has a chance to manage their HD without feeling like they have to tell their opponent a HD model is incoming and, hey, if there isn't a HD model...you won't know that and have to plan around gambling on whether it exists or not.

With regular gaming mates, who I've built rapport with, I usually just ask them to just note any HD placements in their mind without needing to take photos or have me turn around. It's a game of wardollies, if you want to cheat...sure...congrats...Big Man.

 

I agree, and think it's time we tried to distinguish what 'gotcha' really means.

Yes, we could say that skills like Holoecho are deliberate 'gotchas' in one sense, but they're really the game's simulation of troopers getting caught out in the imagined future combat world, aren't they; it's not what we usually mean by 'gotcha' as a style of spiky play where one player takes advantage of a situation by knowingly misleading or deceiving their opponent.

We've seen many mis-attributions of that style of bad sportsmanship to myself and other advocates of 'rules as simply read', and we really need to distinguish what we mean. Let me explain how I'd manage the obscure angle stuff you describe above, and see if we can get some agreement.

As soon as I notice that it might affect my own or my opponent's moves, I'll draw attention to the issue and say something like "Hey, if you're going to move through that area, have you noticed that I might be able to see through that gap and under that car?"

Now let me be clear that I don't want to see this potential sight line actually measured out, or even agreed to notionally exist or not. I don't think such a 'view' is a Line of Fire given its definition, and I don't think we can know if it until someone gets there and the Order gets resolved (because I roll with 'Chad', right? ) but if I can flag the situation in advance like this it can save as all a whole lot of potential problems, and I'd like to think I'd exercised courtesy within the rules.

... Chad himself wouldn't care, of course.

So what I'm saying is that I'm sure it's possible to be extremely courteous and be overtly supportive of my opponent's best game, yet also stay true to a simple reading of the rules and avoid the slide into 'play by intent' that's often proposed as a solution to spiky play and gotchas.

 

[QUOTE="Wolf, post: 14703, member: 889"

As soon as I notice that it might affect my own or my opponent's moves, I'll draw attention to the issue and say something like "Hey, if you're going to move through that area, have you noticed that I might be able to see through that gap and under that car?"

Now let me be clear that I don't want to see this potential sight line actually measured out, or even notionally agreed to exist or not. I don't think such a 'view' is a Line of Fire given its definition, and I don't think we can know if it until someone gets there and the Order gets resolved (because I roll with 'Chad', right? ) but if I can flag the situation in advance like this it can save as all a whole lot of potential problems, and I'd like to think I'd exercised courtesy within the rules.

... Chad himself wouldn't care, of course.

So what I'm saying is that I'm sure it's possible to be extremely courteous and be overtly supportive of my opponent's best game, yet also stay true to a simple reading of the rules and avoid the slide into 'play by intent' that's often proposed as a solution to spiky play and gotchas.[/QUOTE]

I'd suggest that what you've outlined above is Play by Intent.

Discussing the potential game state with your opponent and reaching consensus prior to committing to actions is so close to PBI that I struggle to see a difference.

If you see one, please clarify for me. :)

 

We didn't reach that conclusion. I pointed out that etiquette is - by definition, not a rule. I don't disagree that's in the rulebook or that it's to be followed, but it's to be followed as etiquette, not a rule.

It's possible that I (would argue that I) understand this better because I've always played plenty of sport, and the words are very commonly used with their proper meanings and understood to have different application, particularly in golf where the ruling body's Golf Etiquette and Rules of Golf are published separately. https://www.randa.org/RulesEquipment/Etiquette/Behaviour-on-the-Course
Every golfer will commonly play as much etiquette as they've learned, but no-one lost a game because of a breach of etiquette. (Are there any golfers here who'll back this up briefly, please?)

So it was me that brought up the difference originally, but may I say I'm not sure it's a terribly important distinction in this game or in this debate! If someone could make sense of the 'play by intent' interpretation of the Etiquette section, I might well be the first to champion it's application. My problem - and the problem for many of the 'rules as simply read' faction is that it just doesn't make sense to us in English or in any sort of clear logic.

I highlighted my own problems with the strenuous interpretation of the Etiquette section that lead to the idea of 'play by intent' but remain disappointed that no-one has been able to answer my questions yet - I'll go find the post and link it in.

 

So can we agree that - in this sort of situation at least, I'd be a thoroughly decent chap and welcome in the PBI camp?

The difference is as I hope I described it in the post. My reading of the rules means I don't believe a Line of Fire exists through the gap between the buildings until a model is activated there. So I'm not going to measure it in any way, and I don't believe I have to share any information about the potential sight line - I'm just alerting my opponent to the problem. I don't want anyone to get caught out.

To extend the situation, let's suppose my opponent's back was turned (maybe when I was doing some Hidden Deployment) and I took the opportunity to sneak a laser line through the gap to prove there was a sight line. Would we agree that not saying anything, and waiting for my opponent to blunder into it would be a dick move?

 

See, you guys keep saying stuff like that, but many of us can't help but see it as 'rules as simply read...except for the etiquette blurb, which I'm going to ignore, misapply, or otherwise twist into something that doesn't contradict the viewpoint I'm trying to put forward." :tongueclosed:

For me, it really keeps coming back to that, and the fact that I just can't comprehend why anyone would read it the way you do, and assume CB intentionally added something that seems so impactful when I read it, yet seems to do nothing when you do.

Maybe it's just the tofu of rules, in that it takes on the nearby flavors, those being the pre-determined notions we bring with us regarding how the game is supposed to be played. I'm not sure I buy that, but maybe.

That's great outside of timed events (and something we sometimes do when playing at our local shop), but carving 10 minutes out of a tournament where time is already an issue, isn't feasible. Unfortunately, they're also the place where you're likely to need verifiable deployment documentation.

Despite this, I've pretty much adopted the last approach you describe regardless of where I'm playing (with some written notation). I just don't care enough; about winning, about being accused of cheating, or about being victim to it.

 

Hey Wolf, can you actually describe what these two positions mean? I think people make assumptions when short hand names are used regarding play.

From my point of view it looks like the key distinction between how you might play, and how I might play (despite being on different sides of the line) is you wouldn't allow your opponent to use a laser line and silly to position their model exactly where it gets LoF to only the desired target?

Basically, one must rely on ones skill at visualising lines of fire and if they misplace their model, bump the terrain or whatever, thems the bumps.

 

But etiquette is essentially still rules, just for behavior not mechanics. The gray area isn't whether it's to be followed, you just admitted it is. It's what the consequences are. In this case, the benefits/consequences are right there in the rules; "you can be considered untruthful, unsportsmanlike, and playing in a way that's not conducive to a better gaming atmosphere." I think most would agree that this is bad enough that we don't need to be told definitively as a hard rule, don't do this.

The problem is that most people have already decided what they think is "a better gaming atmosphere" and since it isn't supported by the expected etiquette, the etiquette must not be something that's necessary.

 

You dont have to but you do to be a good chap. But if it was you evil brother who wasn't as nice, not saying anything until you opponent has declared AND moved their figure through the gap is legitimate play according to the rules?
THIS is the crucial thing for me to understand, as that seems to be what I am reading from you, alkasyn and Mao.

Even if they asked you prior to declaring?

Even if they placed a silly and asked if they reached this point with a cautious move? twin brother Wolf could say "dunno mate, try it and see".

The rational response to that isn't to shrug and go with it. Most players will check it themselves. At which point, twin brother wolf might complain about time wasting, and we enter a WHOLE new area of etiquette about not wasting time which doesn't even have a blurb in the rulebook, but everyone generally agrees is a good idea to follow.

So why is one form of etiquette, a "house rule" but the other is generally considered hard and fast because its unfair.

 

Yes, and it's worth going over this since clarifying formal rules and etiquette and distinguishing them from the courtesies we're developing ourselves is at issue in our debate.

The rules say "The Hidden Deployment state is Private Information. However, once it is Cancelled, your opponent has the right to verify that trooper’s deployment" (N3 p72) and I may be wrong, but I don't think there's any other rule or formal etiquette beyond that.

Because smart phones are pretty much ubiquitous amongst gamers, taking a quick photo at deployment is perhaps the most common way of being prepared to comply with the rules when the HD state is cancelled. So our turning around to allow one another to record our HD positions is a common courtesy we've developed to manage the issue that players may or may not actually have HD in their present list, but still want their opponent to think they may have.

The rule is that the opponent has the right to verify it. If you can't verify it on demand, you've broken the rule.
The common (not formal) etiquette is the practice offering the photo opportunity to one another.

 

thats a tangent for a different conversation and irrelevant to this discussion. Please stay on topic to prevent us going around in circles again

EDIT:
Furthermore, there must logically be a distinct difference between the "etiquette" in a gaming group such as trust and turning for HD and the Etiquette that is written down codified and defined within the actual rule book.

 

Simply untrue. I can find the exact spot that achieves the line of sight that get me what I need, then declare a move there if it is obtainable. Using a laser line I can get it to the millimeter. I suppose my opponent can not help me get to that spot and leave me to it, but that just wastes both our time. While being a poor sport is reprehensible, I suppose it isn't cheating. But it certainly isn't how you should play and it absolutely isn't the way "strictly in line."

Line of Sight is Public Info. Facilitating checking that is good manners. Your way is identical to my way in how it plays out, it just takes longer and is more annoying.

 

I agree and don't at the same time. It is a tangent but how we handle it is similar. Since the rules don't clarify LoF any more than they do how we verify HD with our opponent we are only left with etiquette. Why is it we are fully capable of developing a friendly way of determining HD while disagreeing on something less abstract like LoF?

What happens if someone doesn't like your presented HD verification method? There is no rule to back up your picture and they might disagree with the placement of the model based on the angle of the photo. Sounds ridiculous and I bet none of us would seriously argue the point in a real game but fact is you could and there would be no rule to help either of you determine who is correct.

Great a TO could if it was in a tournament but most of my games are between me and my opponent with no mediator. I don't want a DM/GM for my Infinity games and I bet no one else does either.

That brings us back to the Etiquette blurb and how we should approach LoF in a sportsman like manner. I don't want to call a TO every time there is a LoF dispute. We should be able to handle it at the table with no gotchas or anything else. We demand precision in movement and range, why not in LoF?

 

Guys, please! I'm not going to answer every 'play by intent' advocate who so very ironically thinks they've caught me out with a gotcha! My post was as clearly as I could make it a way of demonstrating that we can be courteous whilst remaining true to a simple reading of the rules, and without having to descend into a 'play by intent'/'positioning by agreement' style.

Despite Todd's valiant and lengthy post (kudos), no-one's yet answered the many questions the 'rules as simply read' faction have about how to get from 'open information' to the idea of 'play by intent' - the logical and grammatical gap is still a mile wide.

If you guys can't make sense of why you think what you think to us, the only thing that's remaining is how we're all going to get along, right?