1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is LoF open info?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Oct 23, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    The problem is that people are saying "You move your mini and I'll tell you if I have LoF." How can the reactive player determine LoF with any special acuity that the active player lacks? Where's the rule stopping the active player from putting their eye or a laser guide down on the table to make something happen?



    Sure, but at that point, where it's going back is declarative. "I was in LoF of this guy and not this guy." You need declarative movement to make the game work, in the real world.



    The fact that Berserk exists leaves us with the implication that the game was tested and written under the assumption that LoF can be checked at other times.


    Sure, but the game is an abstraction that isn't trying to model "real life" very closely (or at least shouldn't be.)



    Positioning matters, but it should be a matter of brains, not fine motor skills. So no, I don't think that your ability to place miniatures precisely should factor into how a game of Infinity plays. There's too many things that can go wrong - a wobbly mini (*cough*Umbra Samaritan*cough*), a mini with a sword that pokes out and makes positioning awkward, a table that's overly textured, weird terrain, a too-powerful indoor fan, etc.

    A game where I know what move my opponent wants to make, it's possible by the rules of the game, but I'm breathing down their neck hoping their hand shakes enough that it doesn't work out is not one I want to play. And I don't respect people who are interested in that game.

    @Nuada Airgetlam seemed confident he could have secret knowledge of LoF that would allow him to gotcha his opponents. That's where I was going with it. Moreover, claiming that you deserve an ARO when a measurement is merely indeterminate is definitely cheating.

    If you legitimately have a belief one way or the other and you don't say, I'd call that pretty darn questionable.



    The example I gave was all assuming a framework where everyone is working with intent.
     
    Hisey likes this.
  2. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    @BlackDiamond Pie-slicing is a thing irl and it's a thing in Infinity. It's not a "peasant railgun." It's part of the game. Part of Infinity is really understanding that the Active Player has control of that sort of thing. You can say you "hate" it, but your hatred of it isn't legitimate.
     
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Having TO'd tournaments, nah, it would. Intent being a convention also forces players to accept that they can't argue the point or play simon says with their opponent. Your example of saying "I don't know" when asked about on-table LoF is something I'm trying to avoid, because it encourages playing tricky buggers with table knowledge. It slows the game down dramatically when we're trying to fit it into a 2-hour round.
     
    Willen and the huanglong like this.
  4. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    You think that often having to resolve things via coinflip wouldn't make the game worse?
     
  5. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    I’m going to interrupt this debate to bring in another debate, and say that I think Infinity would be better with at least some degree of premeasuring allowed. I don’t think that being able to eyeball distances to the inch is an interesting skill that warrants being rewarded. I feel bad every time an opponent misses a shot because their model was half an inch out of range.

    I was disappointed that N4 did not include at least ZoC premeasuring, if not entirely open measurement at will.
     
  6. BlackDiamond

    BlackDiamond My life is an uncoordinated order

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2020
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    84
    They can tell because the miniature is now in its place and LoF is to be checked. It's not even that they're saying it as if they're withholding info, they'd be saying it because its only after the model is moved is LoF checked, at which point there isn't any more moving, it's played on from that point. And, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing stops the player from doing that, PRIOR to moving. The moment you've moved, you're now checking LoF on things.

    A case to fix a mistake made does not somehow mean that declarative intent is the right way to do it in other, normal times. You flatly do not need declarative intent to 'make the game work,' unless you're using 'in the real world' as yet another sort of weasel word carrying the weight.

    Or there was a mistake in how it was formatted, or it was played in such a way that is not entirely clear. Tell me, for parachutist, does the model need to touch the edge or merely the surface it is on?

    The very reason this is a question is because we are viewing what Berserk means and the other rules differently. CB absolutely does need to conclusively say how this functions.

    It's a game about small unit tactical operations, and I don't see how a basic tactic is somehow anathema or bad. Saying 'well, it's an abstraction' is not a justification as to why it is somehow wrong for a person to expect to be able to set up multiple AROs on a specific angle. That is simply asserted as if it is something that is a bad thing to be avoided.

    Again, I think you and others are vastly overestimating the motor skills involved in positioning miniatures. More to the point, there is no real 'brains' involved in saying 'I do this obviously advantageous thing and avoid this obviously disadvantageous situation.'

    But, at the end of the day, you don't think how you place minis should matter, and I disagree and do. We could likely discuss that at length, but there is likely a deeper reason why we both feel that way and its unlikely to change. And, really, there is no right answer anyway, so it is what it is.

    So don't play it. There is a bad habit I see a bit on both sides of this debate to appeal to the worst possible interpretation and situations involved in any given situation. What you describe would flat out be bad sportsmanship, and given there is no timer, sort of pointless; if their hand slips, they can just, you know... move it to where they want, because until they say they're done moving, they're... not done moving.

    The sort of game you say you're not interested in does not resemble the game I'm interested in either, which is, I think, sort of telling about this. I feel both sides of this really need to stop assuming the worst potential outcomes.

    I mean, you could certainly make guesses at LoF, but honestly I think the entire framework of 'Gotcha' misses the point, and can be avoided by, well, not asking questions that could lead to it. Also, did anyone in this thread make that claim? I don't remember it, and I certainly didn't claim it was so.

    No? Because a. you're not obligated to give an opponent tactical advice and b. you don't, in fact, actually know until its checked. It's not questionable to not answer a question you, per the game, don't know the answer to. You're not tricking anyone by not saying it, and you're not tricking anyone by not giving them advice how to not get shot by your units. Of all the sort of subjects here this one actually sort of confuses me the most, I've never encountered quite this sort of argument in a game before.

    I mean, ok. My main thought is just that it really does lead into the issue of the game being in a weird abstract state that is not matched by the board that is supposed to represent the game.

    My hatred is an opinion, it's as legitimate as any other opinion. :P

    More to the point, slicing the pie in real life and pie-slicing as folks use it in Infinity share only a vague similarity between each other. I've sliced the pie in real life, and it does not resemble a slow walk to get a perfect angle on enemies you know are there to limit their lines of fire to you. And, as I said, sure, its entirely possible even under my understanding of the rules, its imply not able to be done by declarative intent.

    Being tricky buggers with table knowledge is not, in my view, an innate negative. I don't really get how it prevents 'simon says' any more than merely following the resolution steps does. You move, you check, you operate off that data.

    And the example of saying I don't know is because you literally don't know.

    But, as I mentioned above (I think? It's late, bear with me,) the arguments for why intent should be a thing are separate from if they are valid under the current rules.
     
  7. BlackDiamond

    BlackDiamond My life is an uncoordinated order

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2020
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    84
    I don't think it's going to need to be, but no, I don't think its going to make the game worse. That is my opinion.

    Totally fair, and you've obviously been around longer than me and have more developed views on the game. I'd say that if there was premeasuring and things were a bit different, I'd be more inclined to buy into play-by-intent, but part of what attracted me to Infinity was it not being that way. :P

    I'd still play it if it was, probably, but I don't want it to be.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  8. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    I was being excessively pithy there, so thankyou for taking it at face value.

    To the extent that it's worth: I disagree. And more generally, the very best games of Infinity that I've played are ones that have rolled through the turns smoothly with both players talking through each other's actions with a full understanding of everything transpiring. For me, intent produces a quicker, less contentious, more enjoyable play experience.

    Interestingly I find those games materialise more often at the top tables of an event, between more experienced players, probably as a function of players with longer play experience knowing better what and how to ask the right questions to get the answers they need, as well as understanding how to answer (or often, pre-empt) questions in a way that gives their opponents the info they're looking for.

    It's not to say I don't make mistakes (playing by intent as I understand it certainly doesn't preclude that) but it speeds up and smooths out execution considerably.
     
  9. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    To refresh memory on what we could establish about community consesus.

    Intent won a community vote 4:1 on the forums and 3:1 in the Facebook community.

    CB is using playbook Intent in batreps involving Bostria as well as Hellois.

    Risking to repeat mysef, CB stated they want to address the matter officially in 2018.
     
  10. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    740
    If someone declares I'm cheating because i sit down at some point during a 2-3h game i will happily forfeit, pack up my stuff and will enjoy never seeing that person again.
     
    Hisey, Cthulhu363, Tourniquet and 4 others like this.
  11. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Since the thread has moved on two pages and @Hecaton has made several bad faith arguments, severely distorted my statements and then had the audacity to call me a liar, I will bring back only one part.

    After you've "virtually" placed the model for "only one ARO", in the "geometrically possible place", the physical model no longer represents the actual placement of the trooper. If it did, you would've placed it where it's supposed to be and measured to it precisely. It's not physically where it's "supposed to be", it's where it was placed by hand, which is an inherently different spot. All measurements and assumptions about ARO so far were made with "where it was geometrically supposed to be", not that particular physical place.

    How do you proceed with next Order to that model and ARO coming to its actions, from that actual physical starting position?

    Where do you start measuring distance from? The model is now in some absurd quantum state.

    Additionally, how are you measuring weapon ranges for the ARO and return fire if the trooper is "where it's supposed to be" instead of where the trooper's model and its base are? Are you gaining fractions of inches? Losing fractions of inches? What's happening there?

    This whole "geometrically possible" virtualization of the trooper placement makes the game instantly fall apart.
     
    iyaerP likes this.
  12. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    I find it' really isn't hard in practice.

    "Hey, you've got a couple snipers next to each other on that roof there. I'm moving up to this doorway here and peeking out so I see the one to my right first."
    "Ah yep, that's do-able. You'll want to be about there."
    *moves model to agreed position, measures range.*

    Notwithstanding progressively worsening RSI, I have no concerns about my ability to place and execute a pie-slice against two adjacent snipers at any kind of range up to ~40"; my eye is pretty good*. But I don't think that should be the arbiter for who can perform certain tactics in a game.




    *Similarly I know when I can't do it, because two models have been vertically stacked or arranged prone + standing to guard a particular approach. Which always seems like a strategy that's missing from these discussions. Maybe it needs a small tactica article or something.
     
    Hisey, Tourniquet, Hecaton and 2 others like this.
  13. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Not sure which way you lean on the core issue, however all of the above seems to me like even more evidence that using actual physical placement of the model to take ARO/LOF off of is doable and should be the way to play. And as I've stated above and in other threads, I am more than willing to assist people with disabilities in placing their model exactly where and how they've envisioned.

    However, what Hecaton was explicitly referring to are situations where he (being healthy and mobile) cannot physically place a model and its base in the desired position, but demands for ARO / LOF to be counted as if he did in fact place it in such a position, on the sole supposition that it's "geometrically possible" to achieve such an angle. He's not achieving that angle himself, he's demanding for me to assume he did, because "the angle exists".

    From then on his model's position is unknown and not represented by the physical model anymore and the game falls apart.
     
    iyaerP likes this.
  14. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    I am extremely strongly in favour of play by intent (as I understand it)
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  15. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Gotcha. How do you propose to deal with the above issue?

    Where are further measurements made from, after the trooper has been "virtualized" into the "geometrically possible" declarative position, instead of being resolved from where the model actually physically is?
     
  16. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    I don't think the issue you're concerned about exists. If I've communicated effectively with my opponent about an action I'm about to take, each of us will have a clear understanding of where a model is about to move to, to within a few millimeters. That's substantively sufficient to easily determine interstitial and final placement, and subsequent range bands (especially given unless range is very close to the break points in a band, there's often no need for extreme accuracy - a shot at 20" is as good as a shot at 20.5").
     
    Hisey, Hecaton and Brother Smoke like this.
  17. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    45
    I’m not saying one way or the other, I was really hoping that N4 would put this to rest one way or the other.I started up in the end of N3 and between Covid etc not had many games, was holding out for a nice clear ruleset. Honestly reading this thread makes me not want to play the game at all, as it seems one side is reading the rules as written and the other side is calling people cheaters or claiming the aren’t playing the game for fun, but honestly from all the insults thrown around I’m not sure which side is which anymore. @ijw i know you’re not the rules author but could you please leverage whatever power you have and ask CB to finally make a ruling please please please.
     
    RolandTHTG likes this.
  18. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    In the interests of putting my money where my mouth is, here's a few examples of ways people can stack their AROs even against opponents who can effectively pie-slice (via intent-based play, effective hand-eye coordination, or otherwise).

     
    Willen, Xeurian, Greif9 and 1 other person like this.
  19. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    And like I said there's nothing wrong with the pie slicing. There's everything wrong with the declarative instead of performative "the angle exists, so just assume I've put my model there". That part of intent play should go and die in fire.
     
    iyaerP likes this.
  20. I'm just writing this, which will definitely be my last post in the thread, to say:

    These types of threads only serve to demonstrate one thing and only one...
    That they do not serve to solve a shit

    It is impossible to reach any agreement, when the only possible agreement that is acceptable is that others accept the opinions (aka impositions) that each one has.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation