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

thoughts on Play by intent

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Death, Dec 12, 2017.

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

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Theres been heated arguments about intent and I've certainly been a bit to zealous about being anti-intent. I feel like I've not fully understood the discussion so I'll break my thinking after watching VaulSC video here (he basically says what I'm about to say):


    The main argument is whether play by intent is legal or not. And I think it comes down to how its done.

    How this can be unfun:

    1) Not allowing any call of intent wastes lots of time micromanaging every movement and painstaking placing every model to avoid mistakes. This wastes time.

    2) Going only by intent ensures you will always slice the pie and can feel very abusive to your opponent. The problem here is one of consent. If your opponent doesn't feel like he has any input in the ARO system then infinity becomes a very unfun where no one bothers to use AROs.

    3)You declare your intent to shoot a target, there was an ARO you overlooked (which means you made a mistake) and so you change your order. That feels like cheating.

    The key is that both players have to agree that the pie-slicing is possible and follow the rules of AROs. You declare a move short order then ask your opponent what AROs can be generated and your intent to place your model to reduce the AROs you face. If its obvious to both players that "pie-slicing" can be done then both can agree to save time and forgoing measuring. If its in doubt then you measure.

    A simple example of this is in VaulSC video. There a corner of a building, in front of you is an enemy so you move up and shoot the enemy without going past the corner of the building to avoid anymore aros. That is in effect slicing the pie. Its obvious to both players that this can be done so you forgo measuring the precise placement of the model to speed up the game.

    So the right order would be:

    1) You declare your move order and state your intent (what you want to do with this order)

    2) ask your opponent what ARO are generated and decide if you both decide you can "slice the pie" then do so.

    3) If theres debate you can check LoF.

    Basically, its important that you and your opponent agree on whats in LoF and whats not. I feel like in past discussions on the topic people were thinking of one of the three unfair practices I listed above and sort of talking past each other.

    What anti-intent players are really against is a player declare their intent and following through without any input from their opponent. Infinity's ARO system is all about involving your opponent during the active turn. Denying them input feels abusive.

    What I would suggest is explaining to new players how playing by intent and pie-slicing works and always getting your opponents agreement on when pie-slicing is possible. If in doubt, then check LoF. But in a lot of cases, your opponent will agree. The ARO system is complicated and its difficult to learn how to effectively use so you should always discuss this with new players to your gaming group.

    Note: I do think most people who play by intent are already doing what I suggest and even people who don't play by intent are effectively doing so anyway without knowing it. I feel like a lot of the arguments of the past have been from misunderstanding then anything else.
     
    #1 Death, Dec 12, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,867
    Likes Received:
    7,306
    Can we please not have this debate rekindled? It gets so infected.
     
    Zakalwe, Icchan, Balseraph and 9 others like this.
  3. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Well, I'm not actually arguing either side. I'm trying to show how both sides have it written in some way and we are really talking past each other in arguments.

    Also, I wanted an excuse to post VaulSC video on this thread since its excellent and he really help me understand the topic. Hopefully his video will help others.
     
    Reece likes this.
  4. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    735
    I did not followed all the heated argument. Just heard about it. But I would agree with death conclusion. That's more a theorical than practical concern.

    I believe I'm part of the intent player, but will move my mini and show the opponent what my move is if he doubt it is possible, after using laser and measuring and all. And if we can't agree, we shall call a referee to know if the move is possible or not.

    After 5 years playing the game in various tournaments it has never been an issue ...

    The only thing that I would do only if my opponent agree (and I always agree) is to allow cancellation of an order if I warn him of unexpected visible aro. But I can understand if you are used to chess or punitive game that you do not allow this kind of cancellation ...
     
  5. regelridderen

    regelridderen Dismember

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    357
    An Infinity table is pretty cluttered with tons of blind angles, and winning games by shouting “Gotcha!” quickly gets old. A game that pits your tactical talents vs your opponent is much more interesting, than the other.

    Besides just because you’re fighting, doesn’t mean you can’t be friendly - Infinity is a gentleman’s game, the other approach is better left with warmahorde crowd ;)
     
  6. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,446
    Likes Received:
    4,658
    I know this can be a fraught topic, but I think what you laid out sounds fairly reasonable. The important part is that both players feel like they are equally involved in the game and that nobody is getting taken advantage of.
     
    regelridderen, Reece and Abrilete like this.
  7. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,007
    To my mind it's more about when you declare the intent than if you can.

    Saying you want to engage model a and stop then moving your own with help from your opponent (or not moving at all if it's a pop out of cover and back type of thing) is fine by me but moving the model first then declaring intent after your opponent calls AROs is a bit eye roll inducing.

    If you're going to do intent based moves, ask your opponent before you start, ask them before you move with intent and make sure you're clear about what you're doing.

    Obviously if you're opponent says no to intent, or you play in any ITS thing ware the organiser says not to use intent based play, it really isn't worth the argument, just take a bit more care in model placement than you would with intent based moves.
     
    Stiopa and Flipswitch like this.
  8. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,560
    Likes Received:
    8,781
    Here's the thing: The Movement rules specifically mention pointing to where you intend to go, but if you don't physically have the movement to get there, "gotcha", you don't make it. Surprise AROs are a thing in this game.

    It's also much easier to judge slicing the pie by eye ahead of time by being away from the corner/cover and step away from the wall.
     
  9. Sora9785

    Sora9785 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    128
    If I am not sure, I ask my opponent what aro do I get when I move model x to point a. He tells me and then I will move it to this point (of course hidden deployment is hidden and will not be considered)
     
    the huanglong likes this.
  10. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    "intent"

    Is a means of preventing one player having to ask "who can see me here?" back and forth indefinitely. LOF is open info (excepting HD) and therefore working to enable to person who is moving being able to move into to open info LOF they want to, and only the LOF they want is merely being a good sport and speeding the game up as opposed to being obstinate
     
  11. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Honestly, I consider this less and less an issue the longer I play Infinity. At this point, I think it's really just a small handful of stubborn individuals loudly arguing against hyper-theoretical pie slicing (typically skewed so far away from the "Intent" practiced by most players), making it seem like a bigger issue than it actually is.

    More than any other miniature game I've played, Infinity is a conversation. Pretty much all my real life experience has supported that, and nearly everyone I've had the pleasure of playing falls somewhere on the pro intent side of the debate. That even includes people who have strongly argued against intent online.

    The shitty thing is that CB could solve this whole debate with a short forum post or article on their main page. I can't decide if they're playing it safe and don't want to alienate certain players, or if staying silent is simply part of their typical trolling. While it hasn't affected me, I feel sorry for anyone who does happen to belong to one of those few communities run/organized by someone who doesn't understand the conversational nature of the game.
     
  12. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    I am told the Spanish version of the rules actually has a section absent from the english one, in which it basically legitimises playing by intent.

    That would basically pretty much end this entire argument, right?
     
  13. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    One would hope, but the English version of N3 included a new passage about LoF being open info that most people interpreted as support of intent, yet people still find a way of twisting it to be about failed movement declarations. Also, certain members of the community have claimed that CB representatives have told them intent is not the intended way of playing. Of course, these comments were made in unrecorded personal conversations, and not backed with any sort of quote or specific wording. As I recall, they weren't even able to provide the context/wording that they themselves used to frame the question they presented to CB.

    Personally, I'd like to see something that clearly resolves the issue, once and for all. Instead, we get Bostria giggling and making intent jokes on Beast of War videos, either despite of the fact he's aware it's an issue or because of it.
     
    jj.konko and Hecaton like this.
  14. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    As Section9 has already pointed out, the rules themselves give examples where your intent to end up in a specific place do not override where you actually end up. Similarly, if someone just spent 3 orders moving and throwing smoke to a certain location, and then place themselves in a spot that I end up having an ARO against, "well the whole point of spending all those orders was so you couldn't see me!" doesn't suddenly change the fact that I currently have line of fire on the model. I am a fan of playing on a level field, and do my best to honestly answer any questions asked of me, but if someone makes a mistake in planning their turn, that's part of playing a game in which one person wins and the other loses. Especially when you consider the fact that this is a game that requires you to make declarations and THEN measure.

    If you have already declared an order, and you don't like the AROs you are getting as a result of that order, it is your opponent's good graces that allow you to "take it back", not anything in the rules. Competitively, I would consider it very unsportsmanlike/poor form to try to take back an order in a tournament unless some other factor renders the entire situation different from what the board represented, such as a previous deployment mistake. Even then, tournament play will generally need to default to "play it as it lies" to keep things as fair as possible.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  15. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    There is nothing about LoF being Open Information that suddenly makes "Intent" play part of the rules. If you have questions about LoF, ask away prior to declaring your order. Then, based on that Open Information, you make your decisions, declaring your Order, and we all resolve the Order as per how the game mechanics are stated. Just like any other piece of Open Information.
     
    chromedog, P-Chan, Alkasyn and 3 others like this.
  16. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    547
    If I point to a spot and ask my opponent who all has lof to that spot must my opponent tell me?
    If the answer is yes then for most practical purposes and depending on how you define it, Intent only speeds up gameplay.... that is a good thing imo.
    I think for the most part it is not intent that people really have an issue with but pie slicing. I have had to explain/argue pie slicing to three grown men so far.
    Pie slicing is what makes people angry imo.
    If you can ask who has line of sight to an exact spot before you move then provoking an unwanted ARO means you are playing sloppy in exchange for game speed. Intent (depending on your definition) ONLY allows you to do everything you could do before but without giving up gamespeed.
     
  17. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    Yes, if you place your model at a point that provokes an ARO you didn't intend, then you provoked that ARO. Just like if you meant to be in cover, but it was 4.1 inches away, you don't magically get an extra .1 inch of movement.
     
  18. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    547
    I don't think anyone is arguing that point are they?
    Is there anyone here who thinks you should get that extra .1 inch of movement?
    My question to you is if I am playing you and you have two troopers watching a corner my troop is just around, can I ask you to point to an exact spot that only one of your troopers can see so I can pie slice?
     
    jj.konko likes this.
  19. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    if your the kind of bloke that is tyring to punish people with regards to the accruacy they can place a model with then you're a serious problem, not the rules.

    Id be taking my minis and going home if you really need that, that much
     
  20. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    4,929
    yes, yes you can and he has to tell you because LOF is open info
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.