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

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. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Not really. Playing by intent, involves agreeing on what that situation currently is or will be going forward when there's no way to maintain it (wobbly models, arms/weapons preventing proper facing, etc), or accurately perceive it (can't check LoF due to physical obstructions, inability to measure, etc).

    Remember, the argument against pie slicing is that I can't physically determine the point where a model needs to be because the human eye sucks. If that's not the case, how are you able to accurately determine that it's not where it needs to be?

    Conversation.

    Conversation.

    Conversation.

    Oh yeah, did I mention it's a conversation? :tongueclosed:
     
  2. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    I thought this was a discussion about Intentioneering, not Pie-Slicing. I don't have a problem with someone who can manage to position properly around a corner to only provoke one ARO at a time.

    If everyone here is agreeing with their opponent on what is happening in a situation where it is difficult to say for sure what's really going on, then why is this a concern? The problem comes up when someone is NOT agreeing that your supposed intent is actually possible, or what you intended isn't what you actually did. The problem comes up when someone plays by intent, makes a declaration, places the model, and expects that to suffice, while the opponent standing on the opposite side of the table goes "uh.... dude, you are totally actually in my Line of Fire there." If both players agree to reposition the model to achieve the "intended" order, great. That's fine. But that's also a courtesy between the players, and has nothing to do with the actual rules as written.

    Edit:

    There is a lot of conversation and communication that aid the play of the game. That's not the same thing as being allowed to reposition your model because you moved it to somewhere that wasn't quite what you thought it was. Again, if your opponent is nice enough to let you reposition your model after you messed up your positioning, that is a courtesy, it is being a good sport, but it is NOT part of the mechanics of the game rules.
     
  3. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Interesting, because I think that what you're describing is not supported by the rules. Unfortunately, CB (despite being asked since N1) has never adequately clarified the way we conduct movement.

    The rules explicitly allow you to specify the exact route the model will follow so the opponent can declare AROs. If we are also discussing/agreeing on where LoF exists (pretty much everywhere, since it's open info), why wouldn't this agreement extend to that route and the players physical placement?

    Why do you feel that the rules support what sounds like a more chess-like "sorry, you took your hand off the model" approach?
     
  4. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Because we're playing a game where there is no pre-measuring. You have to declare your route first, and then measure it and go as far as your movement will take you along that route. Once you've measured your movement you don't get to change your declared path of movement to a different final position based on what you were intending to do.

    Interestingly enough, the rules in Cautious Movement specifically refer to "intending" and the results being not what was "intended":

    • When you declare Cautious Movement, you can measure the distance to your intended destination to see if this Entire Order Skill is viable. If it is not, the trooper follows its declared route, but does not enjoy the other benefits of Cautious Movement, so enemies might ARO as usual.
    Your intent does not protect your from the consequences of what actually happens on the table. Your opponents sporting attitude and good nature, however, might.
     
    Belgrim, Wolf and FatherKnowsBest like this.
  5. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Wow, we've come full circle, and we're only on page three. That might be an Intent Debate record. :laughing:

    As I mentioned before, not being able to complete the specified path because you're compelled to stop by an unknown variable (Movement) is not the same thing as unintentionally diverging from a specified path where known variables have already been discussed and agreed upon (LoF).

    Just to be clear, the gist of your argument seems to be that despite LoF being open, movement paths specified, and desirable paths achievable, a player's actual model movement/placement has to be backed up by precise physical hand eye coordination, at which point you suddenly cease to have a open dialogue that might correct for such errors? Presumably, in anticipation that you can capitalize on them unintentionally and accidentally diverging from everything that had been previously agreed upon and discussed?

    Sorry, but that seems like a petty, spiteful, and generally unpleasant way to play the game.
     
    deathklockk, Flipswitch and daboarder like this.
  6. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Again with the name-calling. The Intentioneering crowd constantly resorting to name-calling isn't actually a point in favor of your argument.

    And again, correcting for errors in placement of your model is not part of the rules. Positioning does actually matter, otherwise we might as well do away with the models, the tape measure, and the table entirely, and just have a narrative story telling adventure. Which, I mean, if that's what you're after, there are all kinds of games that do that.
     
    FatherKnowsBest likes this.
  7. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Todd has hit the nail on the head and that attitude, once demonstrated, is where I walk away from the table, or in a tournament, if its an issue I call a TO, because thats jsut a terrible attitude to have to deal with
     
  8. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    I'm not calling you names, I'm telling you how the type of game play you seem to be promoting would make me feel. I admit that making assumptions about why you'd play this way could be considered unfair, but I obviously don't share the same viewpoint on what skills the game is meant to test.

    The opinion bit aside, it was an accurate description of what we agree to be true according to the rules, and how you'd play it, right?
     
  9. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    At no point have I stated my "attitude" during a game, nor at any point mentioned ceasing to have open discussion about the state of the game, so no I really can't see how either of you are actually responding to what I'm saying, versus what you are trying to make it sound like I'm saying.
     
  10. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    its not aimed at you specifically mac, but i find the idea that an opponent punishs people for their physical abillity to place a model in a previously agreed upon location as unsportsmanlike. enough so that theres little point really discussing it further so Id leave the table
     
    deathklockk and Todd like this.
  11. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    The same could be said of pre-measuring. If you find it "punishing" to play the models as they actually are placed on the table, then you are advocating for playing a different game that has a very Infinity-style flavor.

    And like I have repeatedly stated so many times that I feel ridiculous, if they are asking for my help I may well be suggesting "no, probably half an inch to the right" while they are playing, but that is completely between us as people being friendly, nothing in the game rules require that I assist you in placing your model.
     
    Wolf and FatherKnowsBest like this.
  12. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    i mean, I could make you hold the LOF laser line out while I "place" the actual model so this shouldnt even be an issue
     
  13. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    sure, LOF isnt premeasuring though......

    so you are back to arguing that despite all declaration, despite discussion and agreement of where the point is and the declaration of a movement to that point you are then trying to "get" the opponent by not allowing that discussion to continue to the physical placement of the model, IE punishing them if they cannoth physically place the model with a preciscion deemed accurate enough by you.

    and thats not supported by the rules and that is an attitude that stinks
     
  14. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    No, you could not make me. You might be able to request that I do so. But this would, in fact, be a form of pre-measuring.

    Oh, so the conversation about placement for pie-slicing that was supposed to be what we were talking about is now back to not being what we're talking about.


    ... I give up. You guys have fun playing your game. I'll play mine.
     
    FatherKnowsBest likes this.
  15. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Yes, the description of Cautious Movement is also how short movement skills are played out. If people will take the time to read the General Movement descriptions on page 61, and the Order Expenditure Sequence on p31 it does all tie up together.
     
  16. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    We end up back here when we talk about pie-slicing because how we conduct movement, model placement, and AROs is the core of that problem, and a model moving into LoF of another model is the most basic example.

    What you're describing is LoF, plain and simple. How can you agree that LoF is open info, and argue that it isn't all of the sudden just because a player has their hand on a model?

    Do you, or do you not agree that LoF is open info?

    What other justification would CB have for adding the blurb (bottom of page 61) but to avoid situations where a player is forced to determine LoF by themselves under conditions where they couldn't possibly do so (i.e.- they're manipulating the model that they're also trying to determine LoF to/from)? Why would they add this after people actually tried to ague that LoF isn't open info, and they don't have to help their opponent determine LoF, if not to show support for the exact opposite?

    Anyway, @Wolf claims to have had an in depth conversation with Gutier himself regarding the issue. @Wolf, please post what was asked, and what he said in response, and clear the whole thing up for everyone. Please be as specific as you can, so we know it wasn't a lost in translation situation.
     
    Mahtamori and daboarder like this.
  17. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    559
    I disagree.
    Playing by intent is both players helping to make sure that the board matches a intended action by bypassing the need for exact measurements and TO judgements. It is a curtesy yes but it is not a house rule.
    Further more I fear playing the way you suggest runs the very real chance of being accused of cheating.

    Player 1: if I move here will you get an aro?
    Player 2: No
    Player 1: Ok then I move there
    Player 1: Pulls out his laser and confirms he will not trigger that ARO as he moves.
    Player 2: pulls out his laser and announces an ARO.
    Player 2: You came out 1 millimeter too far.
    Player 1: pulls out his laser and they both argue about who is placing the laser wrong tell they have to call over a annoyed TO.
    Both players suspect the other was trying to pull something.

    Better to play with intent like this.
    Player 1: I want to move up as far forward as I can without triggering an aro. Is this a good place?
    Player 2: Move it back just like a millimeter and you are good.
    Player 1: So here then. Thanks
    And the two players have a nice speedy game.
     
    jj.konko, deathklockk, P-Chan and 5 others like this.
  18. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Agreed. A brief discussion in advance, is better than an argument after the fact.
     
    barakiel likes this.
  19. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    The etiquette section on p61 is not a rule, because by definition, points of etiquette are not binding rules.

    Rules and etiquette do not have the same status in games where they both appear, which is why those different words are used by the people writing the rulebooks! Generally speaking, players can be required to play by the rules and penalized if they do not; whereas points of etiquette are merely the expected courtesy of the game, and not likely to be enforced.

    So even if the etiquette section said something as extraordinary as 'players must provide one another with millimeter-precise information about LoF and may measure before the resolution step in the order sequence to obtain such information' (which it most assuredly does not) players would still not be able to force their opponent to play that way.

    In summary, this Intentioneering amounts to a game that's very like Infinity, but in which players do not properly estimate distances and discover outcomes in the proper order sequence, but rather use a notional positioning of their models by agreement.

    There's nothing much wrong with @Death 's suggestion that we discuss the style of play, but people should also fairly acknowledge that the supposed basis of their style is not in the rules, because it's explicitly only part of Infinity's etiquette!
     
    #59 Wolf, Dec 28, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  20. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    I wanted to post the bit from page 61, just so people know what's being referenced in lot of these posts. I had to go find it because people's interpretations had me doubting my recollection of precisely what it said. Now that I've had a re-read, I'm feeling pretty confident.

    Sorry @Wolf, but Infinity has so many actual rules that are found only in the supplemental blurb boxes, the fact that you would dismiss something simply because it's found in one titled Etiquette sort of destroys any credibility your argument might have had in my mind.

    Take a close look at the blurb, specifically the reference to LoF/AROs that might disrupt a given order as being Open Information (capital "O" and "I", because it's a defined game term). "Expected" is also pretty clear in its usage. You would maybe have a point if it said something like "encouraged, but not required to."

    Is this really your argument? "I don't have to do something because I'm only told to do it as part of sportsmanlike gaming etiquette, and not as an explicit game mechanic." Seriously?

    Anyway, please go ahead and post what Gutier explained to you. Personally, that would go a lot further towards convincing me than admitting that you're simply choosing to ignore the "etiquette" blurb. Plus, it's here on the forum where someone from CB can corroborate that it's definitely the way they intend for the game to be played. Debate over, win-win. If people want to play it another way, they still can. The important thing is that we can all finally move past the re-occurring debate over what the correct or intended method is.
     
    #60 Todd, Dec 28, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • 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