thoughts on Play by intent

Did you read the quoted post saying pie slicing has no basis in actual combat? If not, I quoted a post saying pie slicing has no basis in real world or near future combat and provided picture evidence refuting this.

 

bout as much as deliberately misrepresenting the situation and arguments

 

If someone can claim that slicing the pie is not realistic as reason for it not being in the game then a collection of videos showing real people using the tactic seems a valid response.

Edit: Haha we all jumped on that one fast. Hell they even call it pie slicing in many videos

 

this blue box?

Order, not short or long skill.

 

Coming to a consensus is one thing, but claiming you're playing by the game as written and designed when in truth you're house ruling to speed things up is another. And we're not coming up against anything in that blurb, since it references a specific piece of information being relayed at a specific point in the game sequence, no more, no less.

Beyond that, it is not incumbent on your opponent to remove risk from the game for you. You moot an order, you and your opponent indicate what LoF from what targets to others exist and might disrupt the order, you declare your order and your first Skill (we'll go with Move), you indicate your intended end point (by whatever means you like), then you select a viable route and measure to make sure you arrive. Once you have, and have placed your model, then you check for LoF for AROs and your opponent declares them. You see if you accomplished the position you intended, and move on to your second skill. Where, in that sequence, is there a role that falls on your opponent to ensure your intention is fulfilled? You make it or you don't.

 

I think pie slicing is realistic and a valid tactic, it is just skill based and not rules based.

 

It helps by demonstrating that the argument 'X doesn't work in the real world' is a terrible argument for what happens in a pretend games of war dollies.

Fun, and by extension, smooth play is more important than convincing players that if they play enough games of Infinity they'll be ready to join Seal Team 6 and do real Room Clearing and Pie Slicing.

The Huanglong, please proceed.

 

@psychoticstorm assuming you are correct and I want to play your way. Please explain simply and in plain English (no run on sentences!) The following:

How can I prevent myself from checking line of fire everytime I look at the board, in order to limit my checking to the conclusion of a skill?

 

I disagree it could be said without that tone, there is no need to raise the already tense argument more.

Yes?

edit ok

You do not use instruments to precisely calculate LoF. the main confusion is that people believe field of view exists in the rules and can be assessed, for example taking a laser pointer or a ruler and check potential lines of fire with precision and then use this information to determine with precision were a model should move, or use these aids during move to determine with precision the models movement.

What really happens is you can eyeball as you say the situation reach a conclusion mark were the model is desired to reach and the path it will get it there, measure, place the model in ts final position if the move does not allow it to reach the final position for example and then check LoF for ARO.

I hope that helps.

 

It isn't but that isn't our point. Our point is that the information needed is already there on the table for us to get there. We just want to speed up the game by having everyone agree to something before proceeding with what might be a contentious movement (i.e. triggering extra AROs). The whole thing is moot if I don't have enough movement to reach the point but in many cases it won't even be a factor so it is just easier to talk it out rather than spend an hour getting a precise placement that would be legal anyway. Unless I am not allowed to look a the table after I declare my movement I will be able to place my model to cut the pie given enough time.

 

By now this list should be called Infinity Bingo...

 

Then, to follow on from your point, where is the risk in your movement? If you make it incumbent on your opponent to ensure you're perfectly placed, how is that sportsmanship? And as PS and others have noted, you CAN look at the table to make sure it's where you want, and to eyeball which of your opponent's models will likely be able to get an ARO on you, but you cannot officially measure it and have LoF until your movement is finished. And, carrying the sportsmanship theme so many are hanging their hats on, why is it poor sportsmanship to ask my opponent to play to the rules, but not poor sportsmanship to spend your hypothetical hour getting your precise measurement? It appears (in the situation being described) that there is an asymmetry in the "give and take". The Reactive player is being asked to give away an advantage they may have labored hard to produce, either in deployment or their active turn, to boost the opportunities of active player...

 

I do not think going to meme war helps the discussion or the representation of one side or the other.

It mostly degenerates the discussion.

 

I think the crux of what is apparently intended is, much like measuring you can look all you like, but using tools (pointer, silhouette or laser line) is considered to be "determining LoF" at that point, which should be limited to certain points during the game.

You cannot determine LoF to a random point on the table unless using a targetless weapon and that random point is your target.

I wouldn't say this is crystal clear but having extensive discussions this is how I understand PS's position.

 

The problem is that field of view, although not defined by the rules, exists and can confirmed without aids at any time one observes the table. Any rules trying to limit the timing in which one becomes aware of LOF therefore cannot be followed, because the field of view cannot be hidden without going to absurd lengths.

 

Stiopa is my spirit animal.

 

This entire post is fallible.

One might argue that the reactive player has nothing to lose with LoF being established or not. The active player is the one spending resources, and putting their models and orders on the line.

Its clear that players differ on whether finding the right position should be skill based or not. And sportsmanship in being helpful, or not wasting time might be equally or differently weighted. None of these points can be considered fact.

The confusion was what the rules intended, and it appears PS has clarified that. However, CB should acknowledge that it is not clear and issue an official response.

 

I am playing by the rules and am allowed to look at the table. The sportsmanship is asking that I not waste both our time accomplishing something that I can legally do.

I assume when I place my troops on the board that the pie will be sliced as my opponents are not poor sighted reckless individuals. When I first started playing I made many mistakes including not slicing the pie. After losing some troopers that way I became more careful. I don't own a laser (most opponents of mine do) however I am still able to manually slice the pie now anyway. I also realized that other players here simply were asking their opponents for help getting the position needed to avoid all that neck craning and wasted time. Doing that keeps our games moving and prevents arguments. It also comes in handy whenever a table/model/terrain is bumped.

It is up to me as a reactive player to make the active players choices hard through placement of camo or other hidden units (simply the threat of them is enough) or simply making pie slicing so order intensive that it prevents the opponent from accomplishing their task without extra risk. Sure you can slice my link team with that HMG no problem. But it will take 5 orders you might not have assuming the dice favour you. In the mean time my other units have not been harmed or locked down in any way.

 

I for one still argue that the "intended" rules have so far failed to be established, the video is questionable for a fairly large host of reasons (not the least because precedent established by far more official videos)
Furthermore, as much as PS is the moderator and should be respected for what hes done for the community there needs to be equal respect and weight put into both the way bostria plays, how marduck and how plebian play and so on. This never came up and inter and that for one tells me that nothing occuring at inter was against the intent of the game designers.