How do you play Infinity?

And what do you thunk is beneficial about that method? What are the pros and cons?

 

@atomicfryingpan

Just curious: When you peek, do you place the silhouette and then adjust it, or do you just leave it wherever you first placed it? Do you ever try to slice the pie? If so, how does that go?

As for myself (and my meta as far as I can tell), I play that LoF to any point on the table is open information at all times, verifiable with laser lines. Movement is sloppier than I'd like (as in, "not legal within the rules"), as many players come from non-infinity wargaming backgrounds. Basically, we activate a model, declare move, then bring out the tape-measure, which then means that paths tend to change mid move. I am actively trying to include more path/end-point intention in my own moves, but it's tough to break a bad habit.

That said, peeking out and back is done through descriptive intent, rather than actually placing a model at the corner, then moving it back. Pie-slicing is done by throwing down a laser line for the second model (the one you want to stay out of LoF for) and nudging the model up to, but not past that line. Similarly, if I want to move up to, but not into an enemies LoF, we throw down the laser line and nudge up to it*. No one has ever declared intent to carry over into the reactive turn, but I don't see myself, or my meta having a problem with it.

*This is all assuming the movement is within the value for the trooper. This is usually not a problem because of our sloppy movement play, but the way I imagine myself playing once I get past that habit, is to place a silly at my intended end point (checking LoF at any point, before or after declaration, and adjusting the silly accordingly), describe the path, and then measure to be sure it's in range. If not, I would move along the intended path as far as my movement allowed.

Pros: As others have said, I like my games to be about my tactical choices in order-use, tool-for-the-job, positioning for the reactive turn, risk mitigation, etc. The way I play allows be the freedom to declare my intention (within possibility), without having to be obnoxiously precise when trying to place my mini. This is especially helpful for minis like the Samaritan and Nexus that are just impossible to move/face the way you actually want them to. Similarly, this is also helpful for putting back minis and terrain if they ever get nudged/fall over. You just put it back such that the intention is still valid.

Cons: I guess it's easier to slip into sloppy play, as we do, but that's about all I can think of.

 

As mentioned - Imho intent seems necessary to allow Infinity to be a tabletop with gorgeous minis and still allow a high level match with whatever terrain available. The physical restraints of reality interfere with applying the ruleset properly without playing intent. Minis don't have to be confined into their silhouette's matching cylinder, terrain can be cool instead of having only straight lines and edges etc.

Intent is necessary for cases like
"My model is facing so he barely has LOF to that corner 34" away, even though his sword is in the way"
from there it isn't much of a stretch to simply use intent to make your opponent aware of important positioning without several minutes of fiddling and eyeballing.
From my experience playing with intent saves a lot of time, precisely beceause it isn't necessary to actually do all the micromanagement on the table, silhouettes and facing are definitely the main offenders here.

In extention it prevents cheating (involuntary and otherwise) and avoids (some) conflict situations. Shouldn't be much of a problem in a friendly game, mostly important for tournaments. If you check with your opponent what is possible and what isn't, you're less likely to go for an Order that leads to a discussion and a lot of measuring with laserpointers.

Applied mathematics are also a big part of why I play with intent.
Imagine a clusterfuck of 2 links going at it, confined in a narrow space in between buildings, then add DTWs to that equation. Unless you want to remove buildings there is no way to determine who gets hit by a Chainrifle and who isn't. Playing with intent you simply announce where you want to place your DTW and what you want to clip with it and voilá, you're done without further issue.

The last point is just a human thing. If you're playing this way, you end up constantly involving your opponent and asking for his opinion/permission. This leads to an overall better game experiece for both players so I think it is worth mentioning.
Playing without intent makes a lot of room to look for chances to prey on mistakes and screw the other guy over - and while not everyone does that, tuning down the opportunities to do just that is never a bad thing.

 

Pros: I feel like it keeps the game moving at a good pace.

I think it helps balance out the active player and reactive player. Usually the active player has the advantage but this makes pie slicing a little harder so I feel like it slightly balances it out.

Lastly and I realize this might be controversial to put it here but it allows us to make mistakes. I think making mistakes is a big part of the game and learning curve. Ive heard people say to the effect of they want to win because of their tactical decisions and not because of the mistakes of the opponent. I can respect that and as a disclaimer I don't mind helping newer players. I wouldn't try and crush new players morale. My warcor didn't do that to me so I wouldn't do that for new players either. That said I don't mind winning based on my opponent making a tactical mistake no matter how big or how small. Maybe he forgot about a repeater I placed the turn before or didn't realize he could have caution moved or go a new route to avoid my aros. I find these to be perfectly fine ways to secure a victory especially against my experienced friends. I've found that those of us who make the least mistakes that game usually win. I know for me I love the puzzle aspect that certain problems in infinity posess. Like how to deal with these suppressing units over here or that TO camo sniper over there or how to get to that objective asap. Getting better at finding the solutions and executing them is very fulfilling for me especially when it's when I found the answer on my own and my experiences and past mistakes help alot.

Cons: Others have said if a player has a problem with shaky hands or something similar play styles like this could prove difficult. I admit I had not thought of that but also not played against that. If my opponent had an issue with that i'd be completely accommodating and would help him with what ever he asked to do. If he said hey do you mind if we play intent that's how i usually play or how it works best for me then I'd agree to do that.

I definitely enjoy the game with this style. It seems to work for the group I play with. If CB says this how it's supposed to be played then that's cool and if they say no it's intent than that's fine too I'll adapt and either way I'm gonna have fun playing some infinity!

 

@A Mão Esquerda

Id like to invite you to explain how you play and why you believe it is important here please. I think Id also like to draw your attention to the posts already here given our discussion in the other thread about the community perception.

 

No, thank you. I’ve taken what measures I deem necessary and am satisfied with them.

 

shame, Id honestly like to have read it. theres nothing to hide mao, its not like this thread is for arguing one way or another, just explaining

 

Again, no thank you. I’ve done what I deem necessary, and am satisfied with it. Carry on as you will.

 

If PAIL proponents are not going to make the effort to outline the benefits of their method with the same clarity as has been shown by PBI advocates in this topic then I personality think that's very telling.

Someone sitting on the fence of the argument is not likely to be swayed to PAIL by anything I've seen here.

This topic exists for anyone to advocate their position without criticism. It represents the ideal place for PAIL's case to be made. It's up to them to make it.

 

Again, no thank you. I've made the arrangements and communications I deem necessary to those who ought to hear them, and am satisfied with them. You may carry on however you like.

 

Arrangements? I had not considered the usefulness of this kind of behavior. I think I'll do the same. Thanks for the advice Mao.

Mask

 

Then by all means, do so.

 

Mind sharing the same restraint in other threads?

If you don't feel comfortable sharing how you play the game, I'd prefer you kept your opinion on how the game *should* be played to yourself as well. Because it sounds like they dont align. I don't feel its fair to newer players when people step in as "devils advocate" about how rules should be read, but provide no useful examples on how to apply those rules in real gameplay scenarios or provide impractical hypothetical scenarios. This leads to frustration which I don't feel anyone should have to get when trying to find information and access this game we all love.

 

Thanks for sharing! Just wanted to quote/reply to repeat Sabin76's question. Could you elaborate further on how your group peeks/slices?

Is it done often, or generally avoided?

 

As the most experienced player in my meta (which isn't saying much because I've only got maybe 2 or 3 dozen games under my belt since I started playing in 2015), I've tried to encourage the play by intent/descriptive play style. This isn't a game like 40k where you line up your guys, roll a fistful of D6s and then go take a power nap while your opponent does the same. Regardless of whether it is your active turn or your reactive turn, both players are essentially 'actively' involved in the game at all times. Its for that reason that I like to encourage everyone to discuss with your opponent what you would like to do during your turn to keep both players actively engaged in having fun and getting the most out of the experience. It is a game, after all. It's also important to impress upon the player that sometimes that have to accept that when they ask their opponent something like 'Can I see that fusilier without the Orc behind him seeing me?' that the answer can sometimes be no, its not possible, they're too close together.

The most common situation that I encounter is while playing a close friend of mine where we use a mix of intent vs as its placed. What will generally happen is one of us will ask our opponent where our intended action is possible, the opponent will get out the laser and as the active player slowly moves the model into place, the opponent says when to stop to place the model exactly as intended. If we cannot physically place the model (or silhouette stand-in in the case of dynamically-posed models or elaborately decorative terrain pieces) in such a way that the intended 'pie-slicing' is possible, we'll generally offer to let the active player rethink the order or take both AROs. It can be time consuming so I'm not sure I'd encourage it for everyone, and if time is a factor I'd much rather just eyeball where the model could slice the pie, but in my mind, first and foremost it is a physical tabletop game. We have incredibly detailed miniatures and some amazing-looking MDF and plastic terrain so I'd rather make the effort to visually and physically place the model exactly as necessary to match the intention. I find it also helps me feel more immersed in the gameplay, almost like it adds a level a realism to it when the models can physically see each other.

TL;DR I play by intent, but I like to use lasers to measure and place models exactly where the intended action is possible. aka insert why not both? meme

 

Thanks, but no thanks. I provide the examples and information in what I believe is the appropriate way and at the appropriate time. If you dislike that, that is your concern, not mine.

 

real shame that PAIL players feel the need to hide what they are saying, @psychoticstorm

It is a shame that we are getting such adamant refusal to discuss of highlight anything. no one has attacked the other bloke for describing how he plays by PAIL. furthermore to then try and claim to be the silent majority in the light of such overwhelming support for intent (in other threads) is disingenuous at best.

 

Courtesy of Plebian and Barakiel

 

Ive also updated my initial post with the structure of an order as its played in my meta, and the meta's I have played in.