thoughts on Play by intent

I meant irrelevant to what im asking, hense the "lets say no" not that your question was irrelevant.

 

Exactly. From my last post some of you only decided to talk about slicing the pie.
While I have a simple question - for the "intent is ok guys" - do you treat the situations that I showed as a proper use of intent?

The situation with "I want to see only one of two guys standing one above each other on a building with a slight shift", and a situation that can be seen here - click.
Are they showing the way you play? Or you think it should be played?

I think we all try to play Infinity in a way it's fun. I don't reject intent in it's obvious form, cooperation between players, sharing the LoF info et cetera. I just don't think that exagerrating the intent into some only mathematically possible situations in a game when you HAVE TO assume distances et cetera makes sense. Or is written in the rules.

When this topic came up in old forum few years ago some people stated, that if something is mathematically possible to do (so an accuracy of 0,5mm for example to see only one AROing enemy) then it should be possible to use this with intent.
Do you agree with that statement?


PozdRawiam / Greetings

 

I dont want to discuss the "pie slice" right now, It ends messily and too many people are invested in the argument for us to get anywhere.

I want to discuss the basic mechanics of moving around the board, declaring an order and carrying it out, with specific regards to popping the corner and how various players determine the relevant point (the point at which you have LOF) as opposed to the end point (the only location the model is placed according to the rules)

Can we agree in such situations you must discuss where that point is with your opponent? as such both of you offering suggestions on where it is/is not before continuing?

 

Actually, I do. My group is PBI. :tongueout: I'd like to move it more towards the gameplay @psychoticstorm described, and this thread gives me plenty of ideas how to discuss it with them.

In my preferred gameplay:

1) We discuss with my opponent what are the visible threats. For example: "Who can see that corner?" "This two guys and that Marker."
2) Then I duly note my opponent's intent: "I want to move my trooper so we'll have loF only between him and this single unit, and then back into cover." "Ok, it might be difficult but go ahead and try."
3) Then my opponent describes his move, places the silhouette at the point he deems right, and we check if he succeeded or not. We note which of my units got an ARO, measure the additional movement back into total cover, and place model at its final position
4) I declare my AROs, and opponent declares his second short skill.
5) Rolling the dice.

As I've stated in my first posts in this thread, that sequence puts greater emphasis on player skill and makes it more risky for units attacking in active turn, but I consider it good for the game. I also consider it to be fully covered by the rules. Note, that I also see PBI as a possible interpretation. One I don't agree with, but perfectly fine for others.

As KedzioR_vo said, some people argue, that it should be possible to use intent to achieve any situation mathematically possible on the table. I disagree with that notion.

 

If people are getting bent up about the wording, using the right terms should matter.
Im still trying to get used to the mindfuck that lasers premeasure angles.
This is a shitstorm (THIS IS what FAQs are for) and Im not gettin anymore poop on me.
I hear 40k is fun again...

 

*concern grows*

My intent is to play this game with people where I don't get into these arguments! At this stage, I'm tempted to say this, and "slice the pie" need to be addressed in an FAQ or for the next edition (whenever that may be). Issue is, I'm not too sure I've got a good idea for how to fix both....

 

All good, Im not trying to catch you out, Im just trying to calm us all down and discuss how we make this work in practice rather than just theory/text.

Anyway, can I ask another question now that youve brought up the split.
Bearing in mind that your opponent has told you his movement path and that the rules dont call for him to place a silly at the displacement point (where the LOF is) merely at the end point.

This part, do you discuss this with your opponent?
Surely based on your statement above about corner popping and the fact that you discuss the position with your opponent with regards to the previous situation, then the same would occur here. With your opponent suggesting a position and you suggesting an alternative until you come to an agreement on where that position is correct? afterall he has declared his path of movement and placed the mini at the end point (as per the rules that is his duty of care), the displacement point is you determining where that is during the resolution step

 

A different way of playing which has substantial negative consequences on gameplay. When moving your model a fraction of a millimeter can mean the difference between winning and losing, players have every incentive to take a large amount of time to ensure that they are placed correctly. The intent crowd sidesteps this issue and makes winning a game about decisions, not how shaky your hands are that day. If you don't want to play to win, that's fine, I love casual games of Infinity... but the rules should be precise enough to handle competitive play.

Considering the rules don't disallow laser guides, it's not a matter of calculating the amount of risk a player is willing to take, but rather triangulating the right position.

I also noticed you avoided answering my question about the manifest madness that your viewpoint would create with respect to models with access to targetless weapons. I suppose you're hell-bent on erasing the downsides to your viewpoint.

 

All good, Im not trying to catch you out, Im just trying to calm us all down and discuss how we make this work in practice rather than just theory/text.[/QUOTE]

I know, it's my intent (:tongueclosed:) as well.

Currently, yes. We discuss it. I'd prefer not to.

I'm all for discussing it beforehand, so that opponent is aware of all risks involved, and then let him proceed by himself. You see, most of the time it's easy, so there's no real problem with finding a good spot. When we enter territory where a mm here or there changes the situation, I'd like the burden of the choice lie completely on the active player. He should calculate ther risk involved, and either decide to run with it, or choose a different approach. That's what the discussion before order declaration is about for me; giving the opponent good idea about the tactical situation, so there's no unfair 'gotcha'. Then he makes his own decisions and movements, and either succeeds or fails.

edit: @Hecaton: I've answered the part about Targetless weapons, unless we're talking about completely different things now. I also disagree that this way would have a negative impact on the game. And even if, it's for every player group to decide by themselves. I have no intention to travel the world and force other groups to abandon their wicked PBI ways, and I'm sure you're not intending to mount a pro-PBI crusade as well. There's a reason I called this thread a storm in a teacup earlier on.

As for the incentive to take all the time to find that perfect spot - for me it's an incentive to do something less risky and/or time consuming. Like activating a trooper with HRL in a completely different part of the table and blow that defensive cuddle puddle to kingdom come.

 

That clearly goes against the spirit of the Blue Box. You're required to help your opponent with LoF.

 

So you think that models armed with Targetless weapons have the ability to check their LoF against more things than those without, due to their ability to, say, throw smoke grenades at points on the table?

 

Shame, the rules wont work for you, theres nothing forcing them to put that silly down at the displacement point, theyve done their job and told you the path, placing the mini at the end point.

now, sarcasm aside. this is an example of why infinity is a discussion. because things like movement paths can be explained in such detail (which is the strength of the system) that you want to be sure that each side of the game understands exactly what the other person means. Without that the game actually wont work.

Edit: one of the easiest ways to have this discussion is to place markers/sillies on the table and be sure we come to an agreement before continuing the game, afterall when we are talking about movement visual displays are the best. But make no mistake, it is a discussion and that requires the participation of both parties equally in the interests of saving time and effort.

Afterall, you cant really prevent someone moving where they wish given enough time, even if you do deny them the use of other tools they have their eyes and the distances we are discussing are usually a minimum of centirmeters

 

And most of the time they don't have to. But when I declare multiple AROs it's vital for both players to check whether I'm actually able to, don't you think?

Discussing it is exactly what is covered by the Blue Box. Hecaton argues that my approach goes against it, but in the process he carefully ignores what the box actually says.

And, again (I think I'll just copy paste it in future posts to save time :P), there's nothing that stops us to play by different interpretations, in fact nothing will, and both PBI and anti-PBI approaches are completely fine. I'm not trying to force my interpretation of the rules as the one and only way to play, and I'd appreciate others not to try and force theirs as one. I know it's the internet and all, but we don't actually have to make the other side agree with us, and it's not some kind of a mortal insult that they don't.

 

look I agree at the end of the day that its largely going to be irrelevant, normally outside notable exceptions people can resolve these issues before they come up I guess. But I still cant help pointing out that I see no downside to intent when compared to eht downsides of the anti-PBI. specifically the time wastage, to me it is only ever an issue of how much time it takes to achieve what is desired by the moving player.

And I do say this as a player that would benefit extremely from anti-PBI given that I am typically the player who is most aware of the LoF at the table. I even have a reputation for wicked angling during my active turn and recognizing good overlapping lanes in my reactive.

That being said so long as CB doesnt screw the pooch and tell one side or the other they are doing it wrong I for one can live with the philosophical debate

 

First of all a public warning, I have asked nicely multiple times, whatever incident happened in Japan will not be discussed again here on anywhere, I am not interested in personal attacks and character assassinations on the forum, moreover it has no actual connection to the discussion and only serves to poison the discussion further.

Adding on that while I am tolerant, more than I should especially on myself, personal attacks and mockery is not allowed and should not be tolerated, people engaging in this please stop, you are here to discuss a perspective,

I will add that making fun of the opponents opinion, using memes and not quoting rules does not make your case strong, it makes it weaker, so please consider it.

As always if you perceive a problem with some members of the community, you need to report them (I know the report function does not work atm, please PM me or any other member of the moderation team) and not engage in rhetorical duels with heavy or mocking vocabulaty.

Thanks.

 

Hey guys, this an updated example of what KedzioR_vo posted. With round base of a silhouette it is much easier to stay in cover and slice the pie.

 

@psychoticstorm any chance you could give me your thoughts on what i posted with regards to intent and how it relates to moving round the board on the last page please

 

exactly, the distances are huge, there will almost always be sufficient abillity to do this, even without a laser.

 

It's like I've said before - this discussion isn't about rules, it's about different gameplay philosophies, which necessarily come with a different measure of what are the pros and cons of different approaches, and how much they weight in. It's nearly impossible to agree on this, we can only share viewpoints and arguments for a greater general understanding of the game and various ways to play it.

If so, the active player can do it without help or taking a long time, as was argued before ;)

In reality the situations we're talking about are much less clear.

 

Now try it with the enemies closer to each other and ten times as far away from the corner.