How do you play Infinity?

All I'm saying is I still don't actually understand how you would play the game mechanically despite how vocal you are about it being the rules.

I appreciate that there are other posters of which you'd rather not engage with further, but if you won't follow through with explaining in a way new players might understand, then maybe you just shouldn't post at all.

The fact you feel you've conveyed your point sufficiently is disappointing.

 

Which would be great if the vocal proponents of the different playstyles would actually share their thoughts here. Instead they continue to throw ideology in other threads, which is useful to no-one.

One poster has shared their thoughts and no-one has criticised them.

 

How is this thread even necessary?!?

Just recently, we've had several intent threads and even a poll that touches on some intent related issues. This same discussion has come up every few months going back years. It pre-dates N3. You can literally spend days, if not weeks reading the various rationales and arguments players have made for intent, on this forum and the old one.

@psychoticstorm , is this research just for you, or is it actually for CB, like it seems? I'm equally encouraged by the fact that it demonstrates CB is willing to relate to the people playing their game, and dumbfounded that it's gotten to this point.

 

Gotcha no problem! It's definitely not avoided as we always try take as few aros as possible. When we attempt to go around the corner we will place the silhouette where we want to end up, explain the path of movement to get there, then measure to see if it's legal to get there. Assuming it is we will usually just leave the silhouete there while declaring the aros because it will make it easier to check for the lines of fire. Once all the aros are declared then switch the silhouette with the model and shoot.

This isn't a very long process. We aren't going back and forth around the table eyeballing and slowly gruelling over where to place the model. It's also not us just playing sloppy and being Like alright who cares let's just see what happens. I would definitely agree it's a skill and that some will be better than others at it. For me I think that's just fine. I Don't think I would ever say that infinity is a game that boils down such fine motor control placement of models because there is so many things that contribute to winning and losing. As far as frequency I'd say it happens a normal amount? If I see a link team and a sniper guarding one specific point like a corner of terrain I'd probably not challenge them their. I'd try to find another tactic to get around it. Also sometimes myself and others will actually try to take out multiple units in one order to be efficient. Me personally if it looks like slicing a corner is gonna be my best bet for the situation I'll try to use either a multi wound model or a tag so just in case there are some surprises my chances of surviving increase.

Another thing too is just the culture/attitude of our group. Very 1st thing I was told by was that in this game bullets are incredibly angerous and more often than not when things are shooting at each other in this game stuff will be dieing. 2nd thing was to not get attached to anything or any plan because it's always one crit away from gone. That's what I also pass onto the people I teach. Our whole group has always been pretty good about that and I guess just being pretty chill in general. Obviously every now and then crazy crits happen that can swing the game and that can suck be upsetting but all in all we are all pretty good at just rolling with the punches. We all just try to have fun and play a quick game of infinity. None of us want to play for 3 hours or argue about line of sight. We want to play cool infinity games. I think the culture of the group is the most important thing.

 

So I think I answered most of that question in my last post but I think you also are specifically asking about can we slide and adjust it when placing the silhouette? Some of us either just place it or will slide it a bit. We don't ask alright can you see me now or alright can just that guy see me. We say alright this is the final position and that's it. I guess you could say it's like checkers and once you take your fingers off lol but once you say this is my position ya gotta own it.

 

Indeed, I was. Thanks for answering :).

 

Thanks a bunch for taking the time to answer. Makes sense! Sounds like you've got a good bunch of peeps to play with too :)

 

I'll tackle this from perspective of little beer and pretzels meta of me and my friends. We've adapted intent without even knowing that it's a thing in the world. Our way of playing grew from our understanding of the rules and some corrections from forum posts.

We're often guilty of skipping the movement path declare phase of the order, just grabbing ruler and go. This usually has no impact on the game and if there is a situation where it would (eg. cautious movement, jump, link coherency) we try to do everything by the book.

Possible LoF is shared freely at any point of the game to any point of the table. If we forgot an ARO in such question and remember it at ARO declaration there is usually no problem with allowing to change current order. If this happens it happens before any rolls and camo markers reveals. Sometimes active player just accepts unforeseen ARO and lives with it.

Pice slicing happens and visual aids are used to get as close as possible to intended position. Intention is often described as "I want to see only that guy". Sometimes its just not possible. We don't allow pie slices which would require sub-millimetre precision. In this regard it is not pure intent play. I've seen it happen only a few times in three years of gaming and never became an issue.

If a model is impossible to position due to big gun / sword or overall shape we position it differently and mark the front arc (or rear arc) with acrylic marker. If marker can't fit we just remember what was agreed upon.

Our playstyle might be a bit loose, sometimes mixing PAIL and PBI but between friends it's rather easy to work out any problems.

On a side-note I thing that some more pre-measuring would do good in Infinity. Certainly it would massively change the game, but I think Infinity would gain much in accessibility and got rid of many feel bad moments for beginners. I like to win or lose due to tactics and not my or my opponent skill in eyeballing inches. I can guesstimate distance but would prefer not too. Other big wargaming games got rid of guesses and from what I've heard and played gameplay changed for the better.

 

That's pretty much exactly how I play too, although I think that counts as purely intent play. A big part of the non play by intent argument in the other threads is the idea that you don't need to help your opponent place their model or hold a laser for them or anything.

 

And, again, I've expressed it where, how, and to who I feel it needs to be expressed, and am satisfied with that. Your disappointment that I communicate how I prefer, rather than how you prefer, and your desire that I cease posting unless I do in a manner you approve of are interesting, but no more than that.

 

I play on a spectrum dependent on my opponent. I myself rules lawyer myself but that shifts down for my opponent depending on their experience. Our community has a lot of casual, and new players, and only 1 or 2 devoted players. when I play, if I make a mistake I give the advantage to my opponent so as to learn, and to keep the game moving. I do not play with "intent", except minorly. If the pie slicing can be done simply without measuring millimeters, I will pie slice, if I know I cannot eyeball it do to how overlapped the mini's are, I accept that it will be a tough one, and if I mess it up and take 2 aro's then it happens. I do not let myself take back moves (except on occasions of proxying by my opponent, or misunderstanding of terrain, ex opponent model has a rifle, but actually it has a ML too).

I try and poke my opponents into playing in this style as it does promote faster, and more precise gameplay (oddly enough), but I work around my opponents experience if they are new to try and have a more fun game with learning involved. I see no gain in dropping the rules hammer on them and punishing them, they will make plenty of mistakes already. If they have fun and learn, they will come back. If they constantly get crushed by rules, they will not have fun.

That's simply my personal beliefs though. I want my opponent to have as much fun as I do, and I want to push myself to be better each game regardless of mistakes I make or perceived "handicaps".

 

Uh oh. I smell a half measure response from CB incoming. Otherwise, what you're describing wouldn't be necessary.

Sorry, but it's hard not be salty when this has been discussed in so much detail for so long. Sure, those threads have often included arguing. However, they've also included lots of well written and thoughtful responses. You've had the opportunity to read them, and I'm sure folks from CB have had the opportunity to read some of them. It's well known that certain CB employees take interest in the forum's goings on, and even find the conflict entertaining. This though, it's like someone has been screaming right in your/their faces, and all of the sudden you're/they're like, "oh, I'm sorry, did you say something?"

As far as tracking how many play a certain way, you're not really doing that (unless you plan on using the data collected in this thread to shape a future poll). Honestly, I'm having hard time actually taking that comment seriously, considering the way you and a few others completely dismissed the clear abundance of pro-intent opinions being expressed, going so far as to call it a vocal minority. How is this method/format likely to give you a more accurate assessment?

 

I really couldn’t be bothered to read another thread on this.

Intent isn’t a hypothetical thing. It’s asking your opponent what you could deduced for yourself without having to walk around the table. Where and what a model can see is ultimately down to Mk1 eyeball and who is going to stop someone looking for themselves? Model placement isn’t an issue as once you know that for yourself you can keep creeping and and adjusting your mini until satisfied. Which would be hugely time wasteful without intent.

 

@psychoticstorm

If any if the discussion in this topic is making it's way back to CB higher up's I'd hope that if/when they make a clarification on the Intent or not intent argument they explain their decision as clearly as possible.

I personally think that enough people have outlined the merits of Intent play that it deserves to be at least considered as the official playstyle or at least one of the official playstyles presuming more than one could conceivably exist at the same time.