thoughts on Play by intent

Flying Monkey Bottom style would not effect this mine example in ANY way... so I am not sure what you are saying.

The trigger area is not open information (this has it's own problems) so I can not ask you to mark where I might trigger so I can only guess.
My point with the mine example was to see if you agreed that you must fallow the intended/declared/flying bottom path as opposed to the path the player might have say accidently taken.

Look on the bright side even if you want to believe this is a "new game" you are only getting a less sloppy opponent and that is better for ITS practice.

 

Well, try not to move your units accidentally, and otherwise try to follow the path you described to the intended destination, unless constrained by the limits of your MOV attribute.

 

Ok, good example. Let's presume the classic scenario with Short Skill: Move; ARO: Shoot; 2nd Short Skill: Shoot.

You could say to your opponent "I want to move my trooper out to see your first trooper but not your second trooper" and, asking for the famously Open LoF information add "What do you think?"

They suggest that if you don't move too far forward, yes, you might only get one ARO but (following the Etiquette section) help you out considerably by reminding you of two other ARO pieces you'd completely overlooked. They suggest the third unit probably can see yours at the corner, and that the fourth one probably can't.

You decide that regardless of the new ARO.s, you'll follow through on the plan to try to gain LoF to the first but not the second enemy unit.

So you spend the Order, activate the unit, declare Short Skill: Move
You can't measure yet, so you eyeball the scene, estimate the best position and - since it's tight, place a silhouette marker or counter there.
Then you measure it out, and see if you can reach that position.
If you can, replace the marker with your trooper, and if not you place your trooper as far along that path as it will reach.

Your opponent then declares their ARO.s against that position.
They don't know if all their units actually have ARO's, but they decided to shoot with all three.

Then you declare your second Short Skill: Shoot and distribute your weapon's Burst: 3 between all three units
Then you check for the ARO.s and measure for range and cover Mods.

You discover that you succeeded in estimating the position so that you can see the first but not the second unit.
Since you had no LoF to the second unit, your shot on it was wasted, but by the same token, its ARO was never obtained and it can't shoot back. As expected, the fourth unit does not see your trooper, so no ARO is obtained there either.

You roll dice for the units and resolve the outcomes of the rolls.

See http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Order_Expenditure_Sequence

 

Hmm yah I agree you should try not to move your units accidentally but what should we do if my actual movement and ending point are just slightly off and it is not because of the limits of my move value?
I say the fastest, fairest, and most fun way to resolve this is for both player to help make sure the model is placed where it was intended... or if you prefer, where it was declared to be placed.

Now how do you think this situation should be handled?

 

Looks like we are agreeing on most things for example we both agree that your declared/intended movement supersedes actual movment and so you would trigger the mine in my one example from before and I think we have narrowed the point of contention to this.

See I don't think you get to say "that might be in lof" when I ask you where your lof is. I think if I ask you for that open information you MUST show me and as many times as I ask.
If I ask you where your line of fire is and you don't give me that open information... well I guess you are playing a game that looks a lot like Infinity =p

 

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. Do you feel like someone has suggested otherwise at some point in the thread?

@Wolf, I'm also confused why the path declared through a mine's area of effect must be followed exactly as described, yet you're somehow allowed to diverge from a path declared to a agreed upon point where LoF exists.

Also, Andre82 is correct, you don't get to shrug and say "maybe" on LoF. I'm still struggling to see how this is up for debate. Even if you (incorrectly, in my opinion) consider the etiquette blurb a suggestion, by refusing to corroborate LoF you're essentially saying "sorry, I refuse to play in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner." Why should anyone, whether they're your opponent or an event organizer, respect or honor that view point?

Just to be clear, verifying LoF is not measurement. Is that what's leading us to reach different conclusions?

That's actually a really beautiful way of looking at it.

 

This. An opponent who tried that in a casual or competitive environment is not getting the polite treatment from then on out. Infinity requires collaborative effort from the players to work.

 

I've highlighted a couple of errors.

At the end of the Move skill, the trooper has been physically moved and all Lines of Fire to and from the actual movement path are known. So all LoF-based AROs are declared while knowing the actual LoF. Then the trooper's second Skill is declared while knowing who they have LoF to. So there can be no wasted shots, other than someone being out of range.

 

I didn't express myself at all well there; I apologize.

... Maybe this explains why I'm so bad in competitive events?

 

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I've said. The rules say we have to declare Move; describe the model's path and intended destination; then measure to find out where the model really ends up. So the measurement overrides your estimate.

 

I'm unclear how anyone might obtain very precise information about units' positioning, facing and LoF without measuring.
Is there another word for using tools or instruments to gauge positions that wouldn't simply mean the same thing?

 

I think we're reaching different conclusions because I'm less attached to the outcome of my ARO avoidance decisions, Todd.

 

Now you are contradicting yourself.
Remember when you said this.

So if I declare a path around the box and in to the mines range but when I move I move over the box then my stated movement supersedes my actual movement.
However... if my declared movement stops before I have LOF on your second model but my actual movement brings me out to far then actual movement supersedes my declared movement.
They can't both be true man you have got to pick one.

Apparently using a laser, or more likely both players agreed upon best guess when the laser is of limited use, is not considered measuring.

 

Well it wouldn't be Andre, would it?

 

Yeah, I typically call it seeing... you know, with my eyes.

LoF and model facing are always binary outcomes, more often than not easily observable without any sort of gaming aids. That means it's more appropriate to call it determining LoF than it is measuring LoF. If determining LoF is a form of pre-measurement that we're not supposed to engage in, then looking at the table is cheating. What, do you shut your eyes until declaring an order and close them again after resolution? Something that the rules cite as being open information, and we all can't help but know the majority of the time, is clearly not something we're supposed to be oblivious of.

By the way, the rules don't say we can't pre-measure, that's just a common way of expressing the limitations on measuring distances during the game. What the rules actually indicate is when we're specifically allowed to measure distances. Even if we're talking about using game aids, like Laser pointers or straight edges, this has nothing to do with measuring distances.

Sorry, when I answered your previous question about measuring, I mistook it for a rational and genuine inquiry about measuring distances. I get it now, you're obviously just trolling. Carry on.

 

My intent is to play Infinity, but life and my three year old keep saying nope. :(

 

I'm thinking that the greatest athletes all start very young. Tiger Woods started golf at two, the same age as Michael Schumacher started driving and the same age that Valentio Rossi started riding ... maybe 3 isn't too early to start Infinity?

 

He loves dice, but also loves throwing things....like miniatures...

I was going to wait until 5 or 6.

 

My prediction for Infinity in 2018 is that we'll all somehow learn to play the same game together, and that the division of this debate will fade like the memory of a bad dream.

In the meantime, may I make my last post of 2017, take the opportunity to switch my avatar into gratuitous tuxedo mode ("You sending the Wolf?") and wish all players of our brilliant game - however they're reading the rules, a happy and prosperous new year!

 

Regarding pie-slicing and intent - although I do agree that it's within the rules to discuss possible outcomes of a declaration (how many AROs would you get here? / who could see me here? ) I also think that after a discussion of mathematical possibilities you still need to place a miniature in a spot that would satisfy all the requirements/specifications you have set during the discussion. If you're not able to do it, because it's too difficult for a player to do without some measuring tools and/or a great amount of time, I'd disagree with the notion that you are somehow entitled to a declaration of the outcome of your movement simply because it's within the realm of possibility. Worked for me so far and no one walked out on me during games, even highly competitive ones at top tables on tournaments.