thoughts on Play by intent

Congrats on your child!

 

Very nicely put, KedzioR_vo and nice illustration.

This debate has so very often heard the argument that 'play by intent' is a practical alternative to the lengthy procedure that would otherwise be limiting ARO's by estimating positions for models by eye.

This suggests that players could always certainly estimate desirable positions - that it's just a laborious and unnecessary procedure that can be obviated by a gentleman's agreement.

The reality is a very far cry from this idea, as you point out. We also did the calculations you mention, also producing diagrams including one in 3D with CAD, and both easily demonstrated the ludicrous precision that's required to slice the pie by eye.

Not that it can't be done at all! And it could certainly be either more or less difficult on a situation by situation basis, but the idea that it can always be done, and 'it's just a matter of time we could save with 'play by intent' is certainly absurd and probably delusional.

As I read about it, pie slicing is a difficult and dangerous move in real life and it seems to me that Infinity-as-intended simulates that very visceral drama of a close-quarters fire fight.

Sure, it's understandable that players can find that overwhelming and will be fearful of unintended casualties, but as we've said before, there are other alternatives to 'play by intent' - taking different routes, using heavier armour and template weapons to name three!

Yes, they are. And not, it's not.

 

INTENT:
"Intent" Is determining where the opponent can see before you move and describing your move in order to position yourself in a place that is pre-determined to exist by you and your opponent.

It cannot be used to abuse hidden or unknown information such as ranges, zones of control, mine detonations or hidden deployment, it does however prevent arguments about what is possible and provides a buffer for the physical placement of a model that is often required in an actual game where the terrain can be bumped/moved ect.

Example:
An example of intent is one of the most common interactions in infinity that is beyond question.
"I wish to move around this corner to a point where I see troop X while maintaining cover, then move back with the rest of the move out of LOF"

Ergo, you discuss that location with your opponent, determine it, measure the distance, add the distance back and place the miniature at the final point.
At no point is the mini ever placed at the extreme displacement of the path, as such the detailed intended path is the path that is taken.

Conclusion:
That is intent, the discussion of how you would want to move so that both players are in agreement of the position and path in sufficient detail to continue playing the game to save time and prevent arguments.

@psychoticstorm

 

It is though, it is exactly how slicing the pie works. Infinity forces you to unrealistically move up to the corner in order for the nearest intervening wall to remain solid. There's no such restriction in real life. If not for that, you could do exactly what the diagram shows, and still retain cover. The whole point of slicing the pie in real life is to minimize target engagement.

It's not a good example at all. It doesn't show that slicing the pie and retaining cover should be harder, it shows that it should be easier.

I felt like premeasuring was being brought up way too much (and not just in regard to line lasers), despite literally no one making the argument that intent had anything to do with premeasuring.

So, now, because of some situation in Japan that got out of hand, despite having nothing to do with intent as the majority of us use the term, now we can't have nice things?

I... I just... I...



I'm sorry, but all someone from CB has to do is read the first few pages of any of the intent debates that have popped up over years, that isn't the one involving lunatics fighting in their shop over a situation that was very much not about "intent."

Oh hey, congratulations by the way!

@Plebian , do you have the energy to repeat yourself for the 100th time and write something up, because I'm not sure I do.

Edit- Thanks @daboarder , I didn't see your reply until after I posted mine.

 

congratulations DG!

 

No worries, it wont stick because someones going to have a cry, I expect to be told that I have to put a silly down at the displacement point to pre-determine it.

The irony would be hillarious in that that is exactly what we have been arguing for just with regards to a straight line path

 

@Hecaton, I'm not trying to misrepresent anything, and aside from getting amused by various personal attacks and reductio ad absurdum in this thread I'm trying to discuss it in good faith. For me the earlier sentence changes nothing; it is about available targets. I've already talked about this in later posts.

Remember, that continued ignoring some words (blue box talking about checking existing LoF before declaring an order, the sentence you've mentioned talking specifically about targets, etc.) can also be seen as an attempt to misrepresent the rules. It's most likely not, it's simply how we put emphasis on different part of rules because we follow different interpretations of them. I'm not assuming you're trying to 'gotcha' us by deliberately twisting the wording, so please return the favor and don't assume that I am.

Edit: Congratulations, @deep-green-x! :)

 

As the game mechanics indicate, things other than models/markers can be chosen as targets. So LoF *must* exist to those things as well. To be blunt, if that sentence changes nothing for you, then you're stating pretty clearly that you don't care about what the rules say, you're trying to force people to play your way, rules or no, while at the same time trying to conceal that what you want is, in fact, an alteration of the rules. I don't respect that viewpoint.

Given that points on the table can be chosen as targets (and thus can have LoF traced to them) it's legal to determine an existing model's LoF to a given target, or any point on the table, before the declaration of an order. Thus, using the Blue Box, it's functionally possible to precisely pie slice using enemy LoF as a guide, by checking the existing enemy models' LoF to points on the table, and then moving your model to one that meets your criteria. You're trying to claim that it's merely a different interpretation... but taking a reductio ad absurdum approach to your contention would make Targetless weapons impossible to use, since Targetless weapons don't magically give the user the ability to gain LoF to anything on the table. Anything else is just you house ruling to solve the problems your prior misinterpretation of the rules is causing.

 

This was a great post, and an important request.

I still think 'play by intent' reduces to notional positoning by agreement, as opposed to actual positioning by estimate. Anyone in the PBI camp want to tackle that in their own words, please?

 

And that's the problem; you don't respect the opposing viewpoint, while I do. You don't have to agree with us, but you can't force your interpretation on anyone by any means necessary. We're discussing game rules here, not decide matters of life and death.

Emphasis mine.

No, they allow to choose a wider range of targets. It's impossible to choose a point at the battlefield as a target with a Combi Rifle, hence there's no LoF there. There is LoS... but that term isn't covered by Infinity rules, as @psychoticstorm mentioned.

Also, no one claims that people can't walk around and look up what models can see. However, you can't do this with the infinite amount of accuracy required for fine pie-slicing, without taking at least some risk or losing some benefits - like cover. @KedzioR_vo explained that well.

 

@Hecaton @Stiopa

hey guys, would you two mind just chilling (just for a moment?), I would like to see what PS says to my description of intent and "popping a corner" before it gets lost in pages of debate.

Furthermore, stiopa would you care to comment on the statement and example I have made above, I would like to hear your thoughts. In particular how you would resovle the maximum displacement position without discussing it with your opponent earlier and how that would apply if the declaration did not include the movement backwards

 

Considering that the "gotcha" crows constantly flings insults our way saying that intent play is sloppy, that good players don't use intent play, and so on, I know you guys didn't respect us from the getgo. The fact that you're explicitly saying that you're ignoring the parts of the written rules that don't support your argument is just icing on the cake. If it's not about the written rules, then what is it about? Whatever gives you an advantage at the time?

Fundamentally, intent play will be enforced at any event I TO... and any literally everyone I know who plays Infinity TOs as well.

I'm not talking about LoS, it isn't really a term that's relevant here. Are you making the argument that I can ask my opponent if one of their models armed with, say, Smoke Grenades, can see a point on the table, but not a similarly armed model? How do we account for holoprojector? That model might actually have smoke grenades and be in disguise...

I think that, in the end, you don't want players to be able to ask their opponents what their models have LoF to. And, sorry not sorry, p. 61 allows for that, no matter how much you and @psychoticstorm try to Gish Gallop your way into obfuscating that.

Fundamentally, people who think they'll be able to bully other players into granting them multiple AROs without working for it don't impress me. I'm going to take the time to make sure I move my models *exactly* how it needs to happen to get the situations I want... if they want my turn to take up 2/3 of the time alloted for the game, that's their prerogative. Or they can nut up and actually follow the sportsmanship rules about assisting with LoF.

 

I hope this short FAQ will help you, Plebian, to continue on your path of victory.

1. No. Don't annoy the other player by taking too long, you want to play them again, after all.
2. Preferably not.
3. Sure. No note necessary.
4. Sure.
5. Why not?
6. Yes, but I'd avoid playing on mats that divide the board like, for example, the Malifaux boards do. Otherwise it's easy to premeasure.
7. Sure.
8. Ask the owner to turn on more lights. Poorly lit is when you're having problems seeing the table, I guess.
9. Sure
10. Sure

Two can play that game ,you know. Creating a strawman to then swiftly disassemble is an internet-old tactic, and as far as discussion goes, does not add anything to it.

The answers to your outrageous questions were rather simple, but it's not the answers you were looking for, right? You just wanted to make the other side of the discussion look like deluded idiots, because it's easier to explain and justify them playing wrong that way, instead of trying to reach a consensus.

There we go, I did say that strawman is easy to do.

 

For clarification - are you playing that this allows you to not be seen by troop Y who is next to troop X?

This is exactly the graphic I was looking for. Infinitely-fine pie slicing as used by a proportion of Infinity players bears no resemblance to the real-world tactic, which is for Close Quarters Battle (within maybe 12" in Infinity terms) usually used for room clearing and not applicable to long range situations.

 

Good work on your definition thanks @daboarder

I'm not myself much interested in the reasons why 'play by intent' advocates think it's a good idea - because I don't find those arguments particularly persuasive anyway, but I appreciate your effort in defining what's actually happening in a 'play by intent' Order.

 

I play whit the spanish rules, the blue box is in the spanish version from the begining (not introduced in the pdf after N3 book was released as some people have said)
Now that we are talking abour LoF I have found that the Spanish version has a difference whit the English one:

"La Línea de Tiro (LDT) sirve para determinar si una tropa puede ver a su objetivo o no. La LDT es una línea recta imaginaria trazada entre una tropa y su objetivo."

Here we can argue what "objective" exactly means, but for me and everyone I have seen playing is an enemy or any point on the table.

And what about LoF during deployment?
If I deploy first there is no enemy models on the table but I want my troops to have LoF to cover some corners or streets, I'm not allowed to do that? Not even by eye?
If I deploy second and I want my total reaction to see an enemy that is already on the table, can I check that LoF?

As @Plebian said I don't think this game can be played whitout intent (not that magic "intent"), it will be frustrating, longer and not fun at all.

 

At this point thats largely irrelevant, so lets so no for now

 

Now you're using collective responsibility and strawman arguments. First, I've never verbally attacked anyone here. Second, I've never said I'm ignoring any part of the rules, quite the opposite. As for the tournaments: I've already stated, that I have no problems with PBI, and when visiting a tournament where TO uses it I'll play that way without arguing or hard feelings. It's simply a different way of playing.

Also, if you see our position as an attempt to bully someone into disadvantageous situations, please remember two things. First, our own units will have the same problem on our active turn. Apparently we're willing to bully ourselves into multiple AROs as well. And second, the whole game is about making sure opponent plays at a disadvantage, while following the rules and playing fair. So yes, I'm deliberately setting up situations that force opponent to make hard choices. And I'm open about that, as long as I'm not using any Hidden Information to do that, like hidden TO Camo units for example. In case of multiple models covering a single corner I might say "yes, I've placed them in a way that makes it very hard to advance with enough precision to avoid multiple AROs. You can risk taking this particular path, or try to dismantle my defence using another way". No gotcha. No bullying. Just the opposing player calculating the amount of risk he's willing to take.

I second daboarder's advice, let's be chill about it.

Simple. Such situations are usually clear cut enough, so that exact movement to the fraction of the mm doesn't matter. In case of doubt about whether the model might take multiple AROs at some point, if there will be enough movement for it to get back into total cover, or if it's possible to move to gain LoF while maintaining cover in the first place, I'd ask my opponent to place the model at the farthest point of its path, check for AROs, and measure the distance to get back.

 

So youd discuss it with them, presumably before declaring AROs? there would have to be a conversation where the other player suggests a location that fills the criteria, you either agree or suggest an alteration yes?

 

I asked specifically because it isn't irrelevant. :-(