1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

[Official Debate Thread] Play by Intent

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Koni, Aug 28, 2018.

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

    Koni BanHammer
    CB Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,013
    Likes Received:
    16,525
    Corvus Belli is sensitive to your concerns and wants to establish a healthy debate with you on the "Play by Intent".

    We want to know your opinion to establish an official position that satisfies the largest number of players.

    In order to do so, this is going to be the only thread "play by intent" is allowed to be discussed in, centralized discussion is essential to our effort.

    We ask for the best possible cordiality, so please, moderate your tone and have a healthy and productive conversation.

    Remember, this is not the place for personal attacks or problems outside this forum. Also remember, don't try to impose your point of view, just explain it and respect the opinion of the rest, even you think they are wrong. If you cannot follow these guidelines, you'll receive a warning or in the worst case, a temporary ban.

    Only a healthy and respectful debate will be helpful not only for us, but for everyone here.

    Thank you so much for your collaboration.
     
    Abrilete, Zewrath, BingBong and 11 others like this.
  2. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    2,348
    eek. willing to open the flood gates, huh?

    Well my personal opinion is that players should always help one another and talk about what they want to accomplish with their order if they think what they want to do will be brought into question. Then, if it can be feasibly accomplished on the table – they play it. if not, then maybe rethink what you want to do.
     
    POP, fenren, MeekRebel and 2 others like this.
  3. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    For me it works in only one way.

    "I want to move there, in a way to be in cover and gaining LoF on THAT model".
    "Look, if you get cover you don't have LoF becauseofreasons"
    "Ok, then let it be and no cover" (Note: then i stay in cover IS NOT an option, you declared to move in order to gain LoF)

    Another example
    "I want to move there, in a way to be in cover and gaining LoF on THAT model".
    "Look, there is no way to get there without LoF to THAT_OTHER model"
    "Ok, then let it be"

    Another examole
    "I want to move there, in a way to be in cover and gaining LoF on THAT model".
    "Look, you enter ZoC of THAT_OTHER model that incidentally is a Hacker so..."
    "Ok, then let it be... Ouch"
     
    LachaMacha, Tcional, DaRedOne and 4 others like this.
  4. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    656
    https://lonelyartichoke.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/play-the-results/

    Check it out Koni.
     
  5. konuhageruke

    konuhageruke Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    609
    Likes Received:
    504
    It feels like de ja vu.
    I hope there will be enough people engaged enough to write their opinion again and again and this time in this topic.

    Play by results.
    My opinion is that you should be able to make a general questions and play. If you placed the model in a way that is not optimal to your plan- play on. Get more aro then desired. Be forced to spend another order to get in right position. Take a risk by not knowing for sure if enemy has LoF or not .Spend extra order for cautious move to make sure there is no ARO. Allow yourself to make mistakes and play on.
     
  6. locksmith

    locksmith comlog active

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    908
    That blog post is a great example of how not to discuss a contentious topic:
    • Begins with a declaration that anyone who disagrees is cheating ("Illegal tradition")
    • Sarcastic, condescending style ("Getting your pie slice just because you want it, is as absurd as switching your Grunt’s -12 Rifle ARO to a Heavy Flamethrower ARO, just because you wanted it.", "Well, I am sorry.")
    • presenting opinion as fact ("That’s fine, but that’s not Infinity. ")
    • Straw Man fallacy (Extensive comparison to D&D)
    • presenting interpretation as truth ("Intention, as detailed in the move skill, does not actually mean that you can just say, “I move such that X cannot see me.”)
    The entire mode of that blog post is 'Here is a chip on my shoulder, I dare you to knock it off'. It's not helpful or productive. It certainly states his position, and well done for that I guess.

    Let's agree to stop discussing this topic in that mode, or we'll never get past where we've been for years.
     
    meikyoushisui, POP, BLOODGOD and 23 others like this.
  7. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,229
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    My preferred way of playing is what have been defined as previously as soft intent

    Before any action, I agree with my opponent on LoF (using silhouette and laser if necessary) : specific LoF "Can your Swiss Guard see me if I move from here to there using this way" to more general "Ok, so we agree that, if I stop there nobody sees me). If I don't ask for a specific LoF (like a diagonal crossing the board) then it's my problem.

    This way we avoid any contestation. The mini are moved only when we are on agreement on the LoF (including the complicated "need the referee" LoF).

    Time to time (when it can bring problems), I do the same for facing, saying "I look this way so I can see from there to there, do we agree". It's a good way to avoid plenty of talk 30 min later when my opponent doesn't agree on what I can see and not see.



    Regarding pie slicing with play by intent, my opinion is "you have to be able to demonstrate".

    If your opponent and you agree that you can slice the pie, then no problem and no need to demonstrate. Your shooter can make a step, shoot and come back to his original spot and only take one ARO in the face. It's faster than checking your position 10 times with silhouette and laser and bring the same result as there was no disagreement.

    If you disagree and you can demonstrate, it with silhouette and laser => you can do it

    If you disagree and you can't demonstrate it with silhouette and laser => you can't do it.

    Infinity is a board game not a math game. Being able to do it on paper is not enough.





    While I find play by the result interesting, I don't like it. Infinity boards are full of scenery and LoF are often subject to disagreement between the players. Discussing it beforehand allows to solve said disagreement more peacefully: you don’t have something to lose as you haven’t moved yet.

    The result of your action is then the result of your strategy plus some luck on your rolls, not an effect of you not seeing the same thing as your opponent when putting your eye on the table to check LoF.

    Surprise should come from something you forget, didn't see coming or some ace up your opponent sleeve, not from complicated LoF argument done after a move incolving complicated LoF checking.

    I prefer to win this way and I even more prefer to loose this way.
     
    #7 Arkhos94, Aug 28, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2018
  8. Brother Smoke

    Brother Smoke Contractor for Bureau Aegis

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    723
    Likes Received:
    980
    Intent, as in:

    "Is there a point at which I can get LOF of one model and not the other, and if so, can we agree for the sake of expedience that my model has moved there?"
    "Yes/No"
    "Ok then we will play it like that/Ok then I will reconsider"

    Is how we play it around my area, and it seems fine to me
     
  9. deep-green-x

    deep-green-x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    810
    No, just no.

    This came up in the last topic and it will get the same response as it did then.

    That is not a good, helpful or accurate article. It adds nothing to the discussion and is actively detrimental to proper debate.

    Ignore it and move on
     
    POP, Icchan, Xeurian and 7 others like this.
  10. deep-green-x

    deep-green-x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    810
    Something which would actually be helpful is a definition of what Hard and Soft Intent is.

    Take the quote below as a staring position as it was generally agreed upon.


     
    n21lv, daboarder and Arkhos94 like this.
  11. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    656
    Perfectly fine to post. You don't like it? Don't comment.
     
    Dragonstriker and Mruczyslaw like this.
  12. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,074
    Likes Received:
    10,325
    But arguably it contravenes Koni's request for healthy debate and a moderate tone. :-(
     
    POP, BLOODGOD, Icchan and 15 others like this.
  13. deep-green-x

    deep-green-x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    810
    @FatherKnowsBest We’ve been asked to try and keep this topic civil and to conduct the debate in good faith with a moderate tone.

    Yet you bring up an artice that goes against this at every stage and does nothing but create a baseline of antagonism in a topic from an absolutist position.

    Somethings are not worth posting becuse they are not helpful and that article is a clear example.
     
    LachaMacha, inane.imp and Zewrath like this.
  14. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    656

    I agree it is blunt. Blunt isn't exactly moderate. But, in contrast, that article is far more moderate than I care to be at this point, hence why I shared it.

    From my perspective, it counts as moderate.
     
  15. Zsolt

    Zsolt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    933
    This is a really cool idea.

    This is how we play, and I'd like the official version to be similar to this:

    "Can you check, if I put my trooper here, who will see it?" and then we both place silhouettes, and try to figure the stuff out.

    "I want to move up to the corner a bit out, so I can see your dude A, then move back. So I'll end up something like here. No? You see with the other one? Then here."

    The main rationale behind this, is that it saves a lot of time, and we are getting to conclusions faster, than it would be otherwise possible anyway. Oh and it also seems legal from the rules.

    So I'd stick with play by intent (have no idea if this is soft or hard or medium), but I suppose I could leave with any final decision here, just make it happen, make the rule wording crystal clear and make it official.
     
    POP, fenren, Abrilete and 4 others like this.
  16. Commoner1

    Commoner1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    318
    @Koni What about turning this into a vote? Everything that could be said has already been said so far. Any further discussion seems futile and would devolve this into that toxic dumpster fire we have seen so often by now. Just let people vote, take that as an inspiration for your final ruling and be done with it.

    (For me it's play by intent all day, every day, but you have to stop slicing the pie at some point.)
     
    oldGregg, POP, Icchan and 2 others like this.
  17. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    This topic has been beat to death over and over, NOTHING will be improved until CB actually clarifies their own rules. Burnout over this stupid argument with its factions and attacks on each other is a big part of why I have basically been ignoring the forums here for a while now. There is nothing new that can be said, it's all been repeatedly hashed out across multiple versions of CB forums over the years. At this point I'm worried/frustrated that apparently CB just doesn't care enough to pay attention to their own forums?
     
  18. locksmith

    locksmith comlog active

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    908
    I've always been a supporter of Intent Play for the sake of practicality.

    Even the finest lasers won't fully support the hyper-accurate measurements necessary for strict 'Play As it Lies'... some level of estimation will always be present in the game, even if it's only 'benefit of the doubt to the reactive player'. So for me, all arguments of Play as it Lies are somewhat spurious, since they can't actually be implemented on a table.
     
    BLOODGOD, Icchan, Hecaton and 4 others like this.
  19. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,020
    Likes Received:
    5,736
    This is the only warning I will give.
     
  20. deep-green-x

    deep-green-x Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    810
    Guys I think the goal of this topic is to arrive at some agreed definitions of what Play By Intent is so that CB can decide if it’s something they want to/can adopt as a solution to a long running problem of how the game is played in tournament settings where time and precision are big factors.

    Let’s not try to advance particular positions on how we individually play the game but instead try to define how something like Intnet would work as a playstle that would not lead to a fundamental breaking of the rules.

    As examples:

    Playing By Intent requires that both players are in agreement about the final position of a unit. Is this generally agreed?

    Playing By Intent only allows for visual information to be confirmed, it does not allow for any unit measurements to be made. Can this be established as a findamental.

    Playing by Intent does not allow units to occupy positions that are physically impossible to represent on the table. Is there a question about this.

    Things like the above are far more conducive to the debate than blunt statements that one style of play is wrong or cheating and is far more useful than absolutist positions in how indaviduals play.
     
    Regnator, BLOODGOD, n21lv and 10 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.