How do you play Infinity? Seems like a simple question but the recent threads illustrate it is not at all, at the moment I am observing two polar opposite camps, the aforementioned "play by intent" and "play as it is placed" gaming styles. Their difference is simple yet fundamental for gameplay, how much information can a player have before declaring an order and while executing any movement short or long skills. Play by intent advocates for a gameplay were both players agree beforehand on the conditions were the gaming pieces will be placed while moving on the table and said pieces are been placed with the help of the opponent to achieve the intended placement, Play as it is placed advocates a gameplay were the active player needs to decide alone the placement of his gaming pieces without any help form the opponent and accept any unintended results such placement may occur. At their purest representation Play by intent advocates for maximum LoF information before an order is declared up to hypothetical movements and possible LoF triggers from such movements and the option to decide not to execute the hypothetical order involving these movements if the movements do not turn out like the player intended, Play as it is placed advocates for limited LoF information, only what LoF exist to a models current location before activating an order and recheck of LoF happens only after the movement short (or long) skills are declared and the placement and movement path is final, models placement is done without drawing LoF, but LoF can be guessed since the player is watching the table while moving the model. Obviously the two extremes are that, extreme expressions of ideas, I have seen many players describe various variants of one or the other approach either to the extend of information freedom or indeed mixed taking parts of one and parts of the other. I will also point out beforehand neither approach advocates for pre measuring. What I am interested and why this thread is created is how players actually play the game. What I want is a description on how you play the game what elements you use from each approach or if you use one of the two approaches to what extend (or purity of approach) you use the approach, please in descriptive words and not percentage, I would also like to see what positives you see in your preferred way of play and what issues you think may or have encountered exist in this way of play, I would also like if you can to say the same for each of the idealised forms of each approach, what you see as positive, what you see as potential issues or what issues you have actually encountered. I am really interested in the feedback, especially what positives and negatives each side perceives for the other and for itself and what issues they have encountered because there is no ultimate, perfect, solution. Please assume that rules back up your preferred gameplay 100% I am not interested in excuses on why this gameplay is they way the game is written to be played, we have plenty of threads about that already, just assume it is and there is no need for justification . I also do not what people commenting on other peoples choices I do not need yet another thread debating each approach and how right or wrong they are, I genuinely want to know how people around the world play Infinity. Thanks.
Generally me and my group play by announcing the intention before the order. So it goes: "Is it possible for me to move my intruder so I only see one of your myrmidons?" "Yes" "Great, let's do that" Generally, if someone goes that way, it is accepted and nobody bats an eye. On the other hand, if the person moves first then asks to redo the move to get a better placement, it is frowned upon. So, following the same example as above: "Okay, you finished your move, now I have ARO with these two myrmidons and that agema over there." "But I wanted to be seen just by one myrmidon!" "Sorry, man." Now, if the game is not an ITS game, usually we ask if the person wants to redo their move, but these 'take backs' are still frowned upon and usually people don't do that more than once or twice a game.
I'll try to condense all my other thoughts on this as simple as possible. I see the table itself as open information as I can easily go around the edges and look from a models perspective fairly easily most of the time. Since that is possible it means that I can place my model with a very high degree of precision based on where I want it to go (running out of movement being the exception to that). By agreeing with my opponent before declaring an order what is possible to be seen on the board to both actual and hypothetical LoFs based on silhouette placement or simply pointing to a spot and asking what they agree can be seen to/from there (with lasers helping if needed) we prevent any disagreement when the model is actually placed. This eliminates time spent going around the table looking at every possible angle as both players are working to figure out what can and cannot be seen. Once agreed to if a model is placed poorly the opponent can simply ask you to push it back a little one way or the other as getting tiny models with interesting poses on terrain that may not be flat is difficult at best. Now that we have a final placement of the model on the table we can get to declaring ARO's with no debate over who can see who as we determined it before the model moved (assuming it had enough M to get there). Play by Intent Positives: -Agreement before models move prevents arguments (or at least shifts them to before a model is moved which can be too late sometimes) -2 reasonably skilled players can place their models well anyway, just wastes time if you don't agree and move on -Sometimes table edges are blocked by walls/other tables/terrain etc making determining LoF difficult or impossible (my choice of table side should not be based on where walls in the room are) -Terrain is not always flat and many times models cannot be placed where they want to go because scenery is not always a flat game mat with some square buildings -Not all players have the best eyes or hand eye coordination, intent play gets around that disability Negatives: -Allows very tight pie slicing to a degree not all players may be capable of Play as its Placed Positives: -I really tried thinking of some but haven't seen any demonstrated in the previous discussions Negatives: -Forces an extra skill of precise model placement into the game -If 2 players disagree over LoF after a model is moved you are stuck with a dice off or judge call -Not all game play areas allow good sight lines giving advantages to a player based on elements outside the game -If a player with any form of physical disability effecting hands or eyes it will be a barrier of entry for them -Makes AROs more up to chance than up to tactics -If the table/model/terrain is disturbed for any reason getting the model back to the exact position is much more important (and may be impossible creating more arguments later) Hope that explains how I play and why I play that way. Edit: Just to clarify exactly with an example of how I (and by extension my local meta) play here is my order sequence: 1.* Pick a trooper I think I want to activate (replace with spot on table for AD) 2. Ask what ARO's would be possible if I choose 'X' pathway for movement (in extreme cases we lay unused tokens to chart the path) 3.** See if there is a way to reduce unwanted ARO (trying different theoretical movement and discuss with opponent, if needed silhouettes and lasers come out now and the opponent will say something while looking from their models view like "move the silhouette back 'X' amount and you're good") 4. Declare the movement order and determine if the trooper has enough Move to actually get there (from this step onward there is no take back of any kind unless it's a new player or someone has encountered a new rule they didn't understand fully, even then veteran players normally suck it up unless the opponent insists they take back the move) 5. ARO's declared 6. Second short skill declared 7. Resolve the order *Before 1. it is also fully accepted to ask about pre-existing LoFs to any spot on the table using silhouettes and lasers as needed. This is normally only used when HD or AD troopers are involved. It is also not used often as that would give away info to the opponent about the existence of AD/HD troopers (no one has ever done this to be sneaky and pretend they have AD/HD that don't exist in my experience). **If at 3. I don't like the options presented go back to step 1. with a different trooper. Not super common but happens for each player probably once per game if it is a close fought one. Obviously there are other special rules and considerations that can change how those steps play out and in other simpler cases we may skip or gloss over things to speed up the game. Overall this is typically how Orders play in our group. As far as time between picking a trooper and resolving an order go, I find the most time consuming to be those AD troopers coming in off board edges. Our 300pts games typically take less than 1.5 hours to play (most being closer to 1 hour).
Broadly, I would say we play a mix between the two with the exception that we always, no matter what, treat LoF as open information that may be discussed at any time. "Can that guy see here?" "Do you have anything with LoF to this area?" "Let me just get my laser pointer out and check LoF." Beyond this, play tends to be play as placed. If you thought you checked all angles and were clear but did not see a model to ask if it had LoF, tough. You may, for example, move a guy, then move him again, then the opponent whips out his laser pointer and declares that a model on the other side of the table can draw LoF through eight intervening pieces of terrain (no exaggeration: this happens a lot). There tends to be a lot of "gotcha" moments in the local meta, with camo tokens hidden inside terrain or several minutes spent with laser pointers trying to find an angle for LoF that no one could possibly eyeball. (If not obvious, I am not personally a fan of this, but I am the only one who disagrees). The only exception is pie slicing on corners. People play this purely as intent. "I want to move out so I can see this guy, but that guy cannot see me." "Nah, he can just draw LoF; nudge back a little." Personally, I think this makes sense by the rules, but he inconsistency between this and the rest of the game (per the local meta) seems a bit out of place. If people cannot be this precise in other scenarios, why is this one different?
I play it more a less as play by intent. Players may ask and the opponent is encouraged to collaborate on the LoF from any model to any point on the table. silhouettes are used for clarity. This may be done at anytime for any sport. Once a player has declared an order, they state their intent and discuss this with the reactive player. "I'm going to move here and see just model A" The reactive player will assist to confirm a location exists where this is possible and the active player places their model there. Minor adjustments are made as necessary. If it is not possible, the reactive player will say so. This may be discussed but the onus is not on the reactive player to just "agree" to geometrically possible situations. I believe our group applies some rational limit here. LoF is then measured from models where they lie. Should both players miss a model which would have LoF when LoF was discussed, we will allow the order to be re-done. Reactive players are often advising the active player of potential AROs before they get too far through an order. The pros of this are: + principally communication is kept open and honest. Neither player is trying to gain advantage from external factors (like if their opponent was distracted by something, or the terrain makes determining LoF challenging). + Ideally, this approach results in less LoF arguments, as the potential LoF of a model is discussed and agreed before the model or orders are at stake. So players are more likely to be amenable. For example, an active player might be more amenable to multiple AROs to a corner if his/her most expensive model isn't already on the line with 2-3 orders spent getting there. + Other pros include accessibility, both in terms of physical ability but also game aids. Not everyone can afford the full silhouette camo markers, but the flat markers can be absolute pains to see from the other side of the board. Having my opponent inform me of likely or intended LoF from there 2D markers makes me relaxed about them not having better markers. Not everyone has laser lines either, to verify LoF to the nth degree. The negatives: - A shy or new player may feel forced into accepting intent statements matter of factly, or may find the other player is forceful in the conversation about LoF. - Another negative is ARO defence is more difficult and nuanced to set up, as achieving multiple ARO is difficult with pie slicing. But I'm not fully convinced this is a proper negative. For play it as placed: The positives: + It might feel like a more organic game, with more uncertainties. Players might find more ebb and flow as their opponent makes a mistake just when they are pushing a successful attack. + I guess is reactive players don't "feel" like they're helping their opponent rip them apart. Negatives: - As above, I would expect more arguments and needing a 3rd party. - People with poor eyesight or shaky hands will struggle to achieve what they want. - ARO defense can be super fortresses without using much thought or skill. Pending how good your opponent is at slicing without tools. - Bumping terrain or models can literally change the state of the game table.
My play method lies somewhere between both extremes. It's not a black or white, either/or situation. Communication is a big part of it. It's a co-operative "gentlemans' agreement" compact. That said, I don't play to win, I play to play (playing a game is the bonus to having the painted models, not the raison d'etre for getting them.). Winning is also the bonus. I tend to learn more by losing, anyway. Failure is the world's greatest teacher. Not just asking what LoF exists between A and B, but also by me physically moving around to their side of the table to see what their PoV is like.
It depends on the experience of the player I'm playing against. Against a newer player I execute moves in full and technically, because a newer player is still learning the fundamentals about how and why certain things can be done. Showing them how to manually slice a pie is more helpful than just claiming it can be done and skipping past the execution stage without explanation. Against experienced players, chiefly by intent as described in the video posted in the recent thread. When both players understand what is possible and respect the other's ability to execute, I have found play by intent to be faster and smoother. It also allows disagreement to be explored before one player commits to a move they believe possible but with which the other disagrees. In both cases, the more open communication, the better.
LoF as open information or intent is a real can of worms. I do think multiple interpretations of the game can exist and I’ll start of with why I think it’s important that they do. Firstly I’d like to acknowledge that there are passionate people at both ends of the camp but in my mind there is nothing that really is stopping those who people or in my interpretation “metas” from co-existing. If you don’t want to play one way then you don’t have to. Similarly if an event is run with a certain interpretation of intent then people who don’t play this way will not be likely to come to these events and same vice versa. I think why it’s important to allow this distinction to continue is that a hard ruling will by it’s nature have an adverse effect not just on individual players but entire metas. We all want to be playing by the same rules but I believe in this situation a shift in the current flexibility of play will knock about communities and I believe in some cases destroy them. These metas do not exist in a vacuum. They support the current player base and these players have agreed whether it be by legacy or through consultation agreed to a particular interpretation. Obviously there is some metas will change but I feel that for some particularly smaller and less active communities such a top down change could be a death blow. I may be catastrophising but it is something to consider during these debates. To be open I play that LoF is open information. Having said that I have played a few games where infinitely fine pie slicing didn’t exist. The world didn’t end and I adapted. However the more I have thought about it in recent times the more I think both camps certainly are playable and have advantages. I can probably use different headings but I’ll define the groups as “eye-balling” requiring figures to be placed before checking LoF and “pie-slicing” allowing infinitely fine angels to be played. What I say are advantages others may interpret otherwise and that’s fine. Advantages of “eye-balling” Allows for a more realistic “battle simulation.” Allowing for mistakes I think can be an excellent game play mechanic. Eg You move slightly too far and suddenly “it’s a trap” moment or you cannot quite see your target. Infinity as a game can certainly narrate this kind of battle. If the game wants to develop this element so be it. Development of model placement as a skill. In the few games I’ve played eye-balling I have seen players that are actually quite good at placing models to have cover as well as limiting their LoF. The more I saw this the more I can say it’s probably a developed skill set and people that play this way are probably better at it than most. I like to think I’m pretty good at guessing ranges. I can usually find on many tables a fire lane that is over 32inches and relish the opportunity for a sniper to exploit that. I could imagine people that play by eye-balling have also developed their skills and get a similar sense of achievement when they are able to accurately execute some orders. Advantages of “pie-slicing” We aren’t playing re-enactment of battles. Elements of realism are given away so that game by design encourages certain ways of playing. Eg spec fire, moving to trigger ZoC ARO then moving into B2B, Ghazi. Maximising player agency in the active turn. This is definitely my preference but I believe that the active player should be able to make optimal choices and this should be facilitated in general game play. This does not mean that reactive players have no agency just that active players again feel like they can accomplish more and not be bogged down by infinite ARO pieces. This doesn’t mean that ARO pieces aren’t used just that a player doesn’t feel locked down by them. I regularly run 4 long ranged ARO pieces (+symbiomates) and I pie slice. This is still extremely frustrating for my opponents and I would not wish for them to feel like they have no answers just because of a list I brought. What I do not see either interpretation as having (also me ranting about random other things as well): There has been the suggestion that certain interpretations will mean that people are more likely to “cheat” or be less honest. I can say that it will be very unlikely and there are other things to exploit eg HD, camo markers numbers, slight variations in movement but believing that my opponent even in tournament situations would do this will make me too bitter and take the enjoyment out of the game. Trust makes the game work so I cannot see the catastrophic interpretations of either side of “intent” unless there is a fundamental breakdown in trust and if there is why are we playing?? Neither position should assume that players are also not communicating. You could ask what do you think will see to an opponent without taking out laser pointers and again eyeball things. You are also not going to waste time by asking where a model can move to in order to draw LoF. Things you will likely see vs things you will see at this point will have an impact on how people play but they do facilitate different kinds of gameplay as spoken about above. What they don’t do however is inherently say people are withholding information. That I believe borders on insulting to our opponents. Hope this makes English. Peace out.
Play by intent, casual and friendly, even discusing options with the oponent and giving sugestions before expending the orders. I'm not a tournament player (last week went to my first tournament), so I only play with friends. Although usually if I make a bad movement because I forget about a model or a marker that was there in plain view in the open, I just carry on without going back.
Completely Play with Intent up to and including perfect (agreed to be physically possible by both players) pie slicing in my meta. I don't think I've ever played a game where Play by Intent is not assumed (including at a Satellite Tournament), though one meta in a nearby city seems to prefer Intent without perfect pie slicing. In my meta and most metas I've played to this extends to both players volunteering open information about LOF to each other that might be relevant without even being asked as (voluntary) acts of sportsmanship. For example "Do you realise if you move that way my two snipers will see you, but if you move around the other way instead they won't?" or even (again voluntarily) information that is not totally open but a player could work out themselves but might be overlooking eg "You realise you're moving quite close to that camo marker I deployed earlier with the minelayer skill?". Note that this kind of communication isn't considered obligatory to share but people generally seem to want to play competitive but friendly and fair games where the result is not decided by little oversights on one side. So that part isn't uniform, but it is common. Personally I'd even rather allow someone a takeback than have a game decided/spoiled by a silly mistake that could be easily avoided (though I don't just expect them to allow me to do that either).
Simple Intent, without Future Perfect, but with You Did Stupid, Don't Do Stupid. We roughly declare what we want to do, but we don't get to pie-slice into the future by declaring theoretical lines of fire that don't already exist. Also, if someone does something obviously unintentional we do allow takebacks (and we call them takebacks). We're trying to have a laid-back and welcoming experience and so far we've had no one voicing complaints, though a few think it could be improved by being a bit stricter. I also find that I very, very, often have to ask people to clarify lines of fire - so I often ask people to clarify lines of fire. It's not that people in my meta are bad at painting LOF arcs, they are excellent at conforming to it and most of them are great painters, it's just that the arc nearly always ends up in a silly direction either from forgetfulness but more often because the models don't allow you to position them in a correct manner and the arcs end up not covering logical corners or lanes.. My only personal complaint with how we play in mid/eastern Sweden is that moves tend to be declared while pivoting a measuring tape over the miniature -.-;;
I play by intent. Always assume pie slicing will work unless models are stacked vertically. I am very open with my opponent about the state of the table and happily assist them finding LoF to anywhere and remind them of things they might have forgotten, camo markers, prone, etc. I have never used or seen the example Plebian's video showed where they set up the intent to stack 2 AROs but it makes perfect sense to me. I'm usually fine with takebacks up until dice are rolled, if a takeback will matter, for example it's going to provoke a hidden ARO, I will ask my opponent to confirm their action before moving on. I am personally guilty of whipping out the measuring tape when I declare a move to try and see where I could move to, but I am trying to stop doing that. I don't have an issue if my opponent does that. I try to uphold all of this even at tournaments. I play in the Colorado meta, my experience here is that people play more or less similar to the above. Intent to me has tons of upsides. It makes the game faster, more pleasant, and more about strategy. The only downside I can see is less multiple AROs happening due to player error. Conversely I don't see any upside to play as it lies, I am of the opinion that anything you could do with intent could be done without it, it will just take a lot more time and more arguing.
I've only played with friends, and at one tournament so far. With friends we do play by intent, but its probably even more 'casual' (not the right word because theres competitive players that play by intent but I'm not sure how to say it), we allow takebacks if something is forgotten, that kind of thing. But that's more because they don't have a wargaming background and I was introducing them to it. At the tournament, it was play by intent, so I assume that's what the local 'meta' is.
As a new player, I've only played a limited number of games and a single tournament. I did however played against opponents who seem to be on opposing ends of the spectrum. For myself, I strongly prefer to play as cooperatively as possible, including discussing possible orders, movements and aro's before actually expending the order. I will, both in friendly games and tournament games, as a matter of courtesy and sportsmanlike spirit help my out my opponent not only by answering questions on open information and possible LoF, but also by warning him about models or load-outs he might not have considered. Ie: "you're sure you want to move your line-trooper through that corridor ? You know my guy is a sniper so has a favourable rangeband there while you're at -6 i think. If you take the other way round you're just up against my combi rifle so we're about equal." Etc. What draws me to infinity is the game, not so much the hobbying. I do enjoy the competitive aspect, and I prefer the competition to be about tactical choices and 'playing the table and the list', instead of trying to 'play the player' by have the game punish/reward seeing/remembering the location of specific miniatures or loadouts. I feel like those elements are open information and should be made sure to be part of both players consideration when declaring orders. I honoustly feel it's my responsibility as a sportsmanlike player to remind my opponent to make sure that he makes the most fully informed moves (without pre-measuring inches), and I sort of expect my opponent to help me out in the same way. Pro's for 'play by intent' (cons for 'play by placement'): * Players help each other out to make fully (without pre-measuring inches) informed choices when declaring orders. This establishes a healthy and enjoyable way to spend time, creating a spirit of two players vs the game, instead of player vs player. * The competitive element is still there though, because players do need to make tactical choices, manage orders, assess risks. * Winning or losing never depends on 'oops didn't see that one', which leads - in my opinion - to more rewarding wins and more rewarding losses. No more feeling that a win or loss was unjustified because it was just because a player "missed that mini standing in that window over there", or didn't realise that "oops, that guy had a panzerfaust as well as a combi-rifle, forgot about that". Cons for 'play by intent' (pro's for 'play by placement'): * Maybe some players enjoy the competitive element more because they feel that remembering the position and loadout of miniatures is part of what being a good player is about, and they feel that wins/losses should also factor that in. Playing by intent will factor those out, therefore not rewarding those skills. * The game might actually slow down since 'playing by intent' sometimes means multiple hypothetical movements and aro's are discussed between players before and order is declared, instead of just declaring, moving and dealing with the aro's you did or didn't consider when deciding to declare. In my personal (yet limited) experience, I've enjoyed the games with a shared responsibility to make sure choices are made based on full information more enjoyable from a social perspective, and more rewarding in the competetive aspect. Games are just more fun, and I'm happy to spend my (spare) free time that way, even if I lose. The games I've played where the opponent was more on the 'every man for himself and play by placement' I've enjoyed a lot less, since the game itself was less of a social passtime, mistakes in placement where made and the outcome of the game felt more like one player capitalising on another players placement-mistakes because of miniatures missed / loadouts-misread, instead of the outcome being a reward for the player who made the best choices based on all open information.
We often tell intends and asks several things from the opponent, but in the end, what counts is what is on the table. We often ask the other for line of sights - it's often easier for the player who is already on the right side of the table to see rather than having the other one turn around the table. Plus we often remind the other about minis, especially if they are not that visible (example camo marker behind a scenery) For example, if i'm the active player: Me: can you tell me what your sniper can see ? Him: he can see here and here. This building is hiding a lot from him Me: thanks. So if i move that troop to the corner, he won't see it ? Him: no, but my soldier here may have sight, we will have to check Me: ok, i'll do it, we'll see. * i move my soldier, trying to get in sight of soldier A without soldier B shooting me * Me: well, i'll move him ... here Him: soldier A shoot. soldier B shoot (he's not sure B can see it, but if he does not say an ARO he will lose any chance to do it) Me: not sure B has lof, so i'll shoot all burst at A * checking with laser pointer and silhouette * Me: seems like B has just enough lof to shoot, too bad for me So it's not really play by intend, rather it's play by situation, but with help from both players. We don't really like "ho too bad for you, you didnt saw that mini" trick. But we (at least several of us) really like "in game surprises" like AD or HD :) We also often tell who our Lt is or can be, since it requires a good knowledge of the army to know who can be Lt, that we don't always have (and we rarely bother building the courtesy list on army to check).
You might have noticed there are basically two sides to the intent conflict. Both would agree that what I quoted here should not happen and is against the rules. There's a few differences between PBI and PAIL, but both agree that when your opponent declares BS Attack with B, he must first check LOF and before you declare your second short skill you must have been made aware of if B has a legal declaration at your trooper.
Yeah, we tends to declare first then check if it was valid - if the order was invalid it becomes idle. In most situations that wouldn't change anything because there is no doubt on it. Not saying this is what the rules are saying, but this is how we tend to play it since it avoids checking constantly: we are only laser+ruler checking when it's time to resolve the order.
PBI In this game you really need a cooperation of reactive player to clearly establish LoF before movment (had you ever moved a link team in a way to avoid linked ML shoot at you?)
