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

Let's Talk About Intent in Code One

Discussion in 'Rules' started by KestrelM1, May 8, 2020.

  1. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    It is an "ad hominem", you are not attacking the argument, but the person (the same as when I did it, I supose you saw it)

    that the intent is to reduce the mistakes, to make more perfect moves. In the end, the objective is not reducing time but reducing mistakes. That is only applied for the active player, but also, the good positioning for the reactive player means nothing most of the time, so it gives an unfair advantage.

    I am nobody to say that you, yourself use PBI for time. I am not talking about you exactly. I say that PBI can be used for reducing bad decissions, and that the "time" is a excuse most of the time. Actually, you are telling exactly that you want to minimize those bad decissions. Then don't make it simple and say it's only related to "time". I am not confusing anything, what I am doing is to not take out a part to just put a false justification.

    is really fundamental?...why? I am arging that a non-rule imposed by some players should not be used if it changes the outcome. In a non-time limit, PBI should not affect the outcome because people have enought time to get to the same result, so PBI in those timeless games is ok for me and I don't mind using it. But in a time-limited game, making good decisions on time are important, and PBI just takes out a part of the decision-making related to positioning.

    because it is not a "skillful physical ability", is an assessment related to view and decission making. Seems to me that you are only focusing in the capacity of placing the miniature, but if you take out PBI, there also enters the ability to decide the amout of risk in those situations. The same as when choosing one route or another. Without PBI, a player might decide to take diferent routes if he see it safer to get the result, but without it, you don't need to think much, use it and you get the same result as any other player in the same amout of time.

    the skills related to good decision aren't also in the game, but I am sure nobody here will say that they are not relevant. What I meant is that, if someone doesn't use PBI, when pie slicing a good player will get the good result more times than a bad player. With PBI that "skill" (which to me is very similar to decision making when moving from one side or another, or when to make an aribone trooper or a TO appear) dissapears, is not needed: you use PBI and magically you get the best result.

    Yes, there might be some languaje barrier. What I tried to explain in that quoted coment is that anybody can use ad hominems. You accouse me of not reading?, I can do the same if it seems that you ignore parts of what I put in earlier posts (mine is also an ad hominem). And those are not good arguments (Are nasty, see?).

    In the last one (non-quoted), what I try to explain is this:
    My point in not using PBI it is not "adding unnecesary dexterity elements", because I think those "elements" are already part of the game, and and PBI is taking them out, giving unfair advantage to whoever uses it.

    Also, all of those explanations are just to show that, "reducing time", while it is a good reason for using PBI (I don't say that PBI might not reduce time), it is not as strong reason as the negative parts PBI brings to the table

    finally, I think we will not get a consensus. Seems to me that you see PBI as a part of the game and taking it out means forcing the players to use something extra, while I see PBI as a tool the players brought to the game to just ignore those skills that were in the beggining.
     
  2. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    I didn't know. My intent (pun intended) was to use fallacy. Sorry if that could bring misconceptions.

    PS: I edited my own posts to fix this
     
  3. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    14,288
    Oh don't feel obliged to fix it because of me. I think we are all guilty of repeated phallacy and I thank you for expanding my vocabulary with this useful word, whether intentional or otherwise
     
  4. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    It's not a false justification. Have more time allows you to focus on making decisions. The argument you are making confuses the effects of a change with the consequences of those effects.

    It's codified at least slightly in the movement rules. It is definitely more codified than any time limit.

    Do you believe that time limits (which are not part of the rules) are more important than intent (part of the movement rules)?

    PBI does not remove decision making. I would like to see your grounds for claiming it does.

    PBI makes positioning strictly a matter of decision-making, instead of decision-making that can be easily reduced by poor dexterity.

    It absolutely is. Nailing the position of a miniature on the table within a 3mm margin is definitely a "skillful ability". As a litmus test, would a person with a physical disability, such as an amputee or someone with Parkinson's disease, be disadvantaged in the game? Any game where they do has dexterity elements.

    Or to phrase that another way, for a player with a physical disability that significantly affects their ability to move models by hand, would you allow another player to move their models for them? Would you still consider that to be a one-on-one game? If your answer is no, then the game has dexterity elements.

    Yes, you get the same result in the same amount of time, because you have reduced the physical dexterity requirement of the game.

    No, you get the result that you choose. You remove the manual dexterity requirement necessary to get the result you choose.

    Do you believe time limits are part of the game? Because again, intent is mentioned in the rulebook once, and timers are mentioned exactly zero times.
     
  5. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    2,645
    I don't understand why discarding intent would save time.

    With or without intent, we'll occasionally have to have a friendly debate about whether there is LoF between points A and B.

    With intent, we'll have the debate before I declare my order. If the conclusion isn't what I'd hoped, I'll declare a different order instead of moving to point A.

    Without intent, we'll have the debate after I Move, and if the conclusion isn't what I'd hoped, I'll suffer the consequences.

    So how would discarding intent reduce the time spent on debate? If anything, I would think the debate would take longer since the active player will be more committed to their assessment of LoF, having been forced to rely on it before confirming it with the reactive player.
     
  6. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    welll... I will try to focus on the questions, answer them and then try to explain again in a different way to expose what I try to.

    PBI is not in the movement rules neither. You move to a position and then check aros. All in the rules are expresed as if there is no PBI. Because of that, I believe PBI was a conclusion, a tool brougth by players, not something in the rules. So I believe that something that is not in the rules should not affect the outcome of the game. PBI is not in the rules, but affects the outcome in time-limited games.

    without PBI, every time you have to pie slicing there is a decision: move one route and risk to face 2 or more aros, or not place there and look for another route. With PBI you don't have to take that decision: you can allways get the 1vs1 so you don't need to look for another routes or options.

    yes, playing without Intent needs a phisical skillful ability when ignoring the decission making involved in. I would prefer to take out of the discussion people with problems.


    If the one making the decisions is only one player and the other only moves where the person with problems wants, it is a 1vs1 to me. The person with those dissabilities can still tell where exactly wants their miniatures and its facing after each move. The problem is that, telling a second person to move them will take extra time. A person with those problems will need a longer time, be it with or without PBI. But I would agree that PBI might help in that extreme case.

    No, there is no physical dexterity requirement: use laser pointers and you find the exact position. In a timeless game, you don't need that physical dexterity to get to the optimal possition, but in a time-limited game, that "physical dexterity" helps to minimice the chances of failure. PBI takes out the necesity of that physical dexterity and the time to minimize failure. So again, is not only time related

    PBI is also mentioned zero times in the rules, and is "used" zero times in the examples, so apart from the "LoS is open information" and you can check it as may times as you want, there are not much things in the rules to think that playing for intent is something the dessigners decided to.

    Let me express and simplify it again so maybe you get what I try to explain:

    Good points of PBI:
    • Reduces time.
    • Makes easier some decisions.
    Bad points of PBI:
    • Makes good defensive positioning almost meaningless. You need some special conditions for it to be really relevant.
    • Makes bad movement safer for the active player taking out decision routes. (this and the above are detrimental for the reactive player, who has no option to decide nothing).
    • the "saving time" is not completelly true (that's why I call it a fallacy), because it don't reduces the time to play the game, but to get better results for the active player. Because PBI changes the outcome of the action, not only reducing its time. Without PBI (as lots of people played before it was a thing) the game can be finished without problems in time.
    • Can be used to cheat.
    The time is only related to tournaments. To me is absurd the need to repeat it, but if I don't do it, I have the feeling that there would be again quotes about it...

    All those "bad points" seem to me stronger than the "good points". There might be more points, but those seem to me the stronger ones.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  7. Tourniquet

    Tourniquet TJC Tech Support

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    1,464
    Likes Received:
    1,635
    The majority of these can be solved with a Line Laser to physically show the LOF, hard to argue it when there's a nice red line connecting the two models.
     
  8. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,799
    False. The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaration of the real movement's ending point.

    Specifically to C1, page 34 says that step 3 of movement is "Declare the final location, and the exact route that the Trooper is taking to reach it." So regardless of how the mini ends up placed, the final location is already declared. This isn't as explicit as the N3 rules, but it's still very clear that the point is determined before the miniature is physically moved. (To be honest, this reads to me like a less rulebook-style phrasing of the part I bolded above.)


    This argument has player agency backwards. With intent, you can choose to take one ARO or two. Without intent, you cannot choose, and are instead forced to pick a position and guess.

    Why would you eliminate the discussion about people with disabilities? It's literally a key issue, because it's very easy to extend to people who have less dexterity naturally.

    Non-intent play penalizes people who have issues with manual dexterity, which is not a great basis for a skirmish game.

    You mean that a person with a disability can play by intent? What you've written is almost word for word the section of the rules that I've bolded above, that forms the basis of the argument for intent play.

    If it helps in those cases, doesn't that mean it exists on a gradient? It would help in every case, though perhaps not to the same extent.

    Again, not true.

    All of those bad points are very bad arguments.

    False. Do you really believe that stacking AROs to the same place is the only form of good defensive positioning? Strong lateral lines of support are still very viable without needing to count on other players to have poor physical dexterity.

    As above, false. PBI allows players to have control over whether or not they thing that they want to do will not happen because of their poor physical dexterity. What if for example, you had shaky hands? Should their be a 10% chance that any decision you decide to make in a game doesn't happen, just because your hands are shaky? Because your argument very easily extends to that.

    False. PBI ensures that the intention of the outcome is what happens, which is the only way to play the Move rules as written.

    The last sentence is also a huge goalpost move for your argument. I literally bolded the point in my first comment that by speed up play, I meant "speed up the rate at which players can place minis in desired positions."

    No more or less than non-intent play. With non-intent play, a simple bump of the table can be used to shift the positions of minis and potentially remove a shot.

    And also, making an argument about a game based on whether or not it allows cheating is just not a good argument. Any argument about the rules is moot if you assume that any individual or group will break them.


    So all in all, it looks like none of the bad points are even true? The one that is true is equally true of non-intent play and moot in an argument about rules anyway.

    One of your three original points was literally about time dude...
     
    #48 meikyoushisui, May 12, 2020
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
    Xeurian likes this.
  9. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    2,921
    If the 2nd person is literally a human crane for the miniature while the disabled person "controls them" verbally to tell them where to put the mini or something to that effect, sure, that's still a one on one. The effect matters, the fact that the mini lands in the tactical position the disabled player wanted them to.

    Playing by intent is literally unavoidable, at least to some degree - wobbly / spiky model syndrome, for example. I want to put the mini on those stairs, facing this way but when I do it's out of balance and falls over. I want to put the mini flush with the wall, facing this way, but it has a sword, scabbard, combi rifle or whatever else sticking out.

    If anyone tells me I can't do what I intended because of those non-game related physical limitiations or because I have Parkinson's and I can't do that, then I really do not see the point playing vs them. Or at the very least in prior cases I will use a silhouette on a base / bit of blutac and call it a day.
     
    Djase01, Andre82, Xeurian and 2 others like this.
  10. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4,729
    PBI also eliminates a lot of the "cool mini, but I can't fit that dynamic pose against a wall" problem. Your miniatures have defined Silhouettes, in spite of that they are often unable to be placed according to the rules corresponding to their size. Preestablished LOF and position fixes the problem that we're not playing a 3D simulated PC game where collision models could be set to ignore the KoJ's pose to allow hugging that wall with correct facing - in the tabletop you're gonna run into this problem fairly often.

    >Makes good defensive positioning almost meaningless. You need some special conditions for it to be really relevant.

    2 S2 models placed next to each other "to ARO together" is trivial to avoid even with manual placement. The only way several AROs from visible models can be layered are if you want to enable gotcha play. The Reactive Player made won't get any agency from exploiting the Active Player's miscalculation of a mathematically possible setup. Layer your AROs to slow the Active trooper down, use ZOC and LOF based AROs, litter the board with Mines. Denying the Active Player the ability to apply 5th grade geometry is not a convincing argument.

    >Makes bad movement safer for the active player taking out decision routes. (this and the above are detrimental for the reactive player, who has no option to decide nothing).

    Again, the Reactive Player gains no agency here. It's still on the Active Player to mess up.

    >the "saving time" is not completelly true (that's why I call it a fallacy), because it don't reduces the time to play the game, but to get better results for the active player. Because PBI changes the outcome of the action, not only reducing its time. Without PBI (as lots of people played before it was a thing) the game can be finished without problems in time.

    The saving time argument is extremely valid and plays a major part in bridging Skill gaps. As the guy able to guess distances up to +/- 2" in WHFB I definitely was at a huge advantage over the guy stuck at +/- 5. To me it's trivial to place models accurately without using PBI, which allows me a mechanical advantage most other players. Taking that away from me is good for game balance, this isn't an FPS where hand eye coordination should matter.

    >Can be used to cheat.

    IRL it's the complete opposite even given a competitive environment, at least in my experience. The tryhard "cheating" stuff is usually when someone edges out an extra inch while moving or "accidentially" moves terrain and "can't remember if that was LOF before or not". PBI opens a dialogue with your opponent and gives him opportunity to doubt or veto your move before you just move in position and then claim your movement was enough to get there after the fact. You get to say, yes you can do that, but it looks like you need to forfeit cover during part X of the Move to get there.
    A cheater will just cheat, PBI has nothing to do with it and in fact makes it harder to get cheated on or tricked into a gotcha situation. Imho PBI makes the game more interactive and builds some respect both ways during the game, since you're constantly approving moves and give permission both ways.
     
  11. Bobman

    Bobman MERC
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    751
    Likes Received:
    554
    Yay, this argument again.

    I'm all for playing with opponent. I used to play strict PBI. But I don't think this argument is opposites anymore, more a grey scale. I do believe at some point we have to take ownership of our moves.
     
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    14,288
    This is why we can't have nice things. The amount of hyperbole is through the roof. :(


    it's not a question of universally saving or losing time, in my experience a player who is good at playing quickly will be able to play faster without intent because you eliminate the unknown factor of the opponent being able to verify the theoretical slices while a player who is bad at it may spend too long positioning the figure in exactly the way they need it.

    Likewise pre-measuring you won't universally save or lose time, but as players gather skill in handling pre-measuring you'll go from losing time to saving it.

    And as with all things, there will always be people who never learn or who get stuck in analysis paralysis. Or who simply do not believe *they* need to make an effort to play fast (which is excruciatingly obvious in golf competitions when a pressure to perform mixed with an overestimation of their own ability becomes prone to slow play of epic proportions)

    At the end of the day, both playing with intent and to what extent becomes a question of whether the relevant skills involved are interesting to test and whether it is fun to test them.
    Not setting down in writing how to play will, however, create barriers between groups, which is why I do not agree with CB's apparent decision to not make a decision on the topic. This, much like pre-measuring, isn't something best left for the players to decide - as is apparent by how the debate is going...

    P.s. also, intent has a tendency to steamroll people who are newer or who have a slightly dim view on trigonometry.

    Edit: quoted the wrong message initially...
     
  13. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    yes, clarifing, but that "direction and the intention" is not the same as play by intent. The "intent" in PBI is not exactly the same, at least how I've seen it be played. The intent the rules says is to make sure both players understand what is going on, while the PBI I've seen is to "pie slicing" and get advantage against some AROs.

    Yes, active player choose, with his movement. Is the reactive player who has no option to choose anything, because its deffensive possition might not be used at all if the tries multiple aros

    It has other topics and implications. It can deserve an entire post for itself, but as said, if someone helps that player, and only the player takes decision and the second person only helps with movement, then there should be no more implications. and PBI has nothing to do there.

    please, show me intent related to pie slicing, which is the main reason here.

    please explain why.

    not all armies can deffend the same way, but all of them can use the double aro tools. PBI takes one option directly out of the game.

    now a strawman. You are giving PBI qualities unrelated to it, and changing the meaning of my post. You know that when I put "bad movement" I was refering move a miniature to a better or worse possition, nothing related to how a person moves.

    you boiled nothing because you insist on ignoring my post: there is a big difference in "reducing time to play" and "reducing time to make decisions". There are tools to reduce the time needed to play, and those tools will not change any outome. Tools as laserpointers, markers or movement templates. But PBI also changes the outcome compared with not using PBI, which is something unrelated to time. You can keep on insisting that are the same, but they are not.


    I put an example of cheat that I've seen on different tournaments by different people, even in interplanetario and satelites. The moment you "remind" the other player their previous intent, some sayd "sorry, I forgot", while others insist on their "cheat" and end having a discusion.

    You can keep saying "false", but if you don't explain correct reasons, will not make your point true.

    and I keep telling that PBI is only relevant in tournaments. What's the problem?


    That is another good point for PBI, I agree.


    Nobody is negating that there are those "mathematically possible" situations, but is it really how the game is designed around? Pie slicing takes out one of the defensive tools from the game, and some factions have a limit of which tools they can use. So is it fair to take one of them out just because there are already others?

    The reactive player had to prepare the place before, but PBI makes it unuseful. The

    I don't say is not valid, but if the objective is only saving time then the outcome should not change. If the objective is to reduce the skill gap, then say so, but I have never seen anybody saying that PBI is good because of that.

    IRL I have seen it more times by more people than other more (in)famous cheats. When you see someone do it once, can be a mistake, but when you see him doing it more times, then that person has a memory problem, or is cheating. You are right in that PBI has nothing directly with cheating, but is a tool that is too easy to abuse and cheat without much to loose.
     
  14. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    451
    That’s not true at all. If the tools are available (checking LoF, measuring, being allowed to place my base just so), then it will reduce the time needed to get there but nothing else. I mean, you might avoid whatever mistakes would occur from lack of patience, but I don’t see that as particularly relevant.

    Sure, you have games where taking less time is meant to generate mistakes, but those games purposefully limit the time for a turn. See Bloodbowl or Space Hulk as games that limit your time for action. Infinity does not do that, so beyond you opponents patience or whatever is the closing time of your game shop, anything that replaces using a bunch of tools by a quick agreement between players is just a timesaver.

    On the other hand, I don’t see how playing by intent helps you making the best decision. That’s a purely intellectual process, I don’t see how player interaction can impact that.
     
    Djase01 and RobertShepherd like this.
  15. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    That's because reducing time is one of the quailities of PIB, but even with all the measurements, the player can put in a different place from the one measured, and there is where PIB hits hard: the miniature doesn't need to be in the correct possition, the player just need to say which pie slicing he wants and he gets it

    on the other side, without PIB and in a time limited game, there might appear mistakes. In my opinion, those mistakes should be part of the game.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  16. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    14,288
    Please also consider that there are degrees even in Hell.

    Originally this debate spawned from the undefined section in the rules whether lines of fire are perfectly knowable metrics. Even if you play by intent, it is possible to play with rules where future lines of fire are not treated as known variables. In such a situation, you would not have the tool to make a move "with the intent to avoid that miniature's LOF", but you certainly have the tools to use intent to speed things up and not have to measure things out as much.
    The important distinction here is that perfectly positioning a miniature to slice will also be impossible because using a silhouette marker to eye up the slice will not be allowed. Instead in such a rule set you would at best use a marker to note where the miniature would move to and then simply have to accept if it moved too far forward. Realistically, you'd still be able to make a bit of "pre-LOFing", but it'd be more limited.

    Let's not beat around the bush too much with discussing intent or no intent and be honest. What it's all about is slicing lines of fire and it has nothing to do with speeding up play. If playing with intent didn't have consequences on playing the game, we'd have a lot more people arguing that players unable to keep up simply have to get better at speeding it up - just like how people have to learn to avoid analysis paralysis.
    Likewise pre-measuring (I'm starting to sound like a broken record), if some people weren't disadvantaged by having to estimate distances, no one would argue against pre-measuring. They'd have opinions, but I highly doubt they'd be very strong or vocal opinions.

    P.s. as a small note, I've noticed that extensive use of theory slicing tends to lead to improper measuring and small, but in the circumstances tactically important, amounts of extra movement distance gained as a consequence of never putting the miniature in place (because it tends to be the difference between retaining cover or not or gaining total cover or not for the next order/turn).
     
  17. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    2,645
    Excellent point. I think you just nailed this conversation. I wasn't around for the previous infamous intent debate so I don't know what the issues were back then. But in the present thread, the one person arguing against intent has been pretty clear that his objection is: he doesn't think pie-slicing should be possible; he thinks that when you come around a corner you should have to take multiple AROs simultaneously. It kind of got lost with all the talk around time saving and manual dexterity and the like. Thank you for getting to the heart of the matter.

    If we must debate, "should pie-slicing be allowed" is a much more clear and debatable topic than "should we play by intent." And it highlights what is at stake. Pie-slicing is fundamental to Infinity's current mechanics - take it away, and you have a very different game. The relative worth of ARO pieces would profoundly change, as would the way you need to position them on the table.

    Personally I like Infinity the way it is, but of course it's a matter of taste.
     
  18. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    451
    Ok, that makes sense. I disagree though, although that might be because I have big fat fingers and I couldn’t put a mini down in the right spot if my life depended on it...

    However, I have to agree this leads to a bunch of issues later on. Say I slice the pie to see one mini but not a second: ARO-wise, things are clear, I just stated I have LOF on one but not the other. What about during my opponent’s next active turn? Does the “no LOF on the second mini” still stand? What if my opponent declares a move for that second mini that ends in the same position it started in: does it have LOF then? What if the situation perdures into an additional turn? Am I supposed to remember a web of invisible special relationships?

    I still like PIB more, but I’m a bit unhappy with the impact of the special distortion it creates. You could even argue that putting the mini in the “wrong” position end up creating LOFs that should not exist if the mini was actually where it was supposed to be. However, PIB is not necessarily just about positioning a model, and overall, I find it a good tool that lubricates a lot of situations.
     
    Berjiz and Armihaul like this.
  19. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    44
    Okay as a newbie and someone who has barely played many games, and only really knows about PBI from this and previous threads will say the following
    1)being able to pie slice so that I can limit the number of AROs then it wouldn’t incentivise me to become better at risk assessment and thus finding optimum moves.
    2)yes it would speed up games as I’d spend less time deliberating my moves
    3)as a newbie I’d be worried about saying a particular slice is not possible due to scenery positioning

    Honestly I’d like CB to weigh in on this so that I can get into the game fully and know where I stand
     
  20. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    451
    1) I find this one contradictory, and it seems to me to work better the other way around: "as you get better at risk assessment and thus finding optimum moves, you'll be more and more incentivised to slice pies to limit the number of AROs".

    2) I genuinely don't think you'd spend less time figuring out your moves with PBI. You'd still be thinking as much, it's just that you'd spend less time executing your decision on the table.

    3) One think remains clear: if players cannot find agreement, you have to revert to traditional methods. As long as you are in good faith, your opponent should accept you disagree with their analysis. A gentlemen's agreement definitely does not equate agreeing to everything all the time.
     
  • 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