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
    Why are people hung up on the "tool" thing? If they're needed to determine LoF, then they're needed, it shouldn't matter when or why. Again, LoF is a binary outcome. It either exists or it doesn't. When you use tools, you're determining a relationship, not measuring a distance.

    I'm still trying to understand why people think you don't actually have to try very hard to determine LoF until you get to order resolution.

    If you've had the discussion, acknowledging the problematic LoF situation, then you should have already come to an agreement by the time the player goes to move the model. For instance, if you've determined and agreed that two reactive model's LoF overlaps in a way that produces what can only be perceived as a single line, then you've already determined the point on the table where the model needs to be. How can the player moving their model miss it, unless you refuse to acknowledge that point?

    Another thing is, those reactive models do need to be nearly right on top of each other, or aligned extremely closely for the situation to fall in favor of the reactive player. Otherwise, you haven't set up a clever defense, you're just choosing to be extremely lazy and imprecise about determining LoF until it's time for you to gain something from it.
     
    david_lee and daboarder like this.
  2. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Nicely put, Alkasyn. This is very much what Macfergusson was saying earlier in the discussion:

    This is an important distinction, because so-called 'intent play' requires a reading of the rules in which players should share the responsibility for positioning one another's models. A more straightforward reading is that each player is solely responsible for positioning their own models - very much as we might expect in a tabletop war game.
     
    FatherKnowsBest likes this.
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Infinity kind of does require that both players be on board with each others' model positioning, otherwise the game is a nightmare to play.
     
    the huanglong likes this.
  4. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Well, it can certainly be difficult Hecaton, and there's no argument that the Etiquette section of the English rulebook encourages co-operation. The problem is the country mile that separates the 'intent play' reading of the rules, and a plain reading.

    A problem is that Intentioneers seem to think the game is or should be a one of absolute precision, so the advocates of 'intent play' look at the Etiquette section obtain a reading that includes the following:

    • Each player knows (or can know) the absolute positions and Facings of all their model, to the micrometer - yet without measuring.
    • Emergent information concerning Line of Fire is also known or knowable with the same precision - again, without measuring.
    • Players therefore know exactly which models do or don't have LoF to any precise location on the tabletop
    • In theory, players Players can therefore position their models with absolute precision, and likewise manage their Facing and Line of Fire
    • Since that's hard to achieve in reality, players may forgo estimation in Order declaration and measurement in Order resolution and merely position their models notionally
    • They may express any desired outcome for positioning and Line of Fire that is mathematically possible
    • Despite this notional positioning being extremely precise, players need not check to see whether unit's positioned in this way really do obtain the desired outcome - the actual positions of the pieces are not used in the game until the next Order
    • Note: all opponents must agree to let pieces be positioned by this method

    Whereas the rest of us accept that Infinity is just a tabletop war game, and so a plain reading of the etiquette section is roughly like this:

    • Infinity is a game of inevitably coarse measurement and positioning
    • Players should therefore be careful to exercise care and courtesy in positioning and measurement
    • They should help one another out with regard to their models' Line of Fire
    • Note: any house rules generally, but especially those that affect positioning, measurement, LoF and MODs must be clearly explained as such and appropriately distinguished from the official rules


    :grin:
     
    #104 Wolf, Jan 2, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
    TheDiceAbide and Dragonstriker like this.
  5. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Measuring is not being used in the quantum mechanics sense in this context, even though you think it is. Measuring is merely knowing the distance between two points; nothing of the sort is needed to know if a model has LoF to any particular point. Considering you thought earlier that models had to declare who they were going to shoot before they knew who they actually had LoF to, you need to accept that you are woefully uninformed on this topic. If you have two models on the table, both players need to be able to determine whether or not they have LoF to each other. In a casual game an agreement can be reached with a die roll, in a tournament setting if a disagreement is insurmountable get the TO over there to make the call.

    Put simply, if you don't know whether or not you have LoF to a point you don't know whether or not you can even declare orders like BS Attack, which makes the game unplayable. Your idea that the ability to know the LoF between two points is a house rule is not supported in the rules. The rules specifically allow for the use of "aids" (laser guides, tape measures held straight, etc) to determine if LoF between two points exists. I'm left with the conclusion that you either haven't read the basic rules or are such a poor sportsman that you're attempting to buffalo your opponents into not being able to attack your minis on the table.

    These bullet points you cite don't lead to your conclusion. Checking LoF between two points is not a house rule. When your opponent asks you if you think your sniper can see one of his models rounding a corner, you don't smirk like a jackass, thinking you're such a clever dick, and say "Maybe - I don't know." You instead answer to the best of your ability. That's sportsmanship, and without it, as I indicated in my post above, Infinity is not worth playing. It's a good game, but not so good that it's worth playing with people who don't abide by the meta-rules of the game. I have all the respect for players who have beaten me soundly (or lost horribly) while remaining good sports, and absolutely none for those who attempt the kind of chicanery you suggest is appropriate, even if I beat them 10-0. The former type of player is the one I'll seek games out with, and the latter somewhat sidestep the game of Infinity itself, and it rather becomes about browbeating them and making it clear that you won't be fooled by any rules sleight-of-hand or other such tricks.

    In my experience, the "Intent" crowd is the most numerous, so "the rest of us" is a small minority. And, moreover, the "Intent" adherents are eminently aware of Infinity's status as a tabletop war game; implying that those who hold the opposite viewpoint are doing it wrong is ironic, considering your earlier misapprehension of the basic LoF rules.

    Based off of your profile, are you a Westerner living in Japan? Have you ever been kicked out of a Japanese game store, even temporarily?
     
    barakiel, Todd and daboarder like this.
  6. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Intent absolutley requires no more participation on the part of the reactive player beyond not being a cheat.

    Lof is open info.

    Intent is means of speading up play and defining movement by said open information.

    The only way to argue against intent is to pretty much argue that you can not divulge open info. And thats cheating
     
  7. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Lets try this another way.

    You ahve a situation where 1 component is moving and attacking and the other 2 components are unable to move. How does anyone legitimately rationalise that its unfair for the moving component to dictate exactly where they move and how they engage.

    The moving part is always going to bw the one in control as it is the only able to dictate the timing of the engagement by dint of being the only piece that can move.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  8. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Well it's not legitimate rationalization, but I suspect it's people who expect to be able to force an opponent to take multiple AROs at once without putting in the actual work required to set up that situation.
     
    daboarder likes this.
  9. the huanglong

    the huanglong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,023
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Who can see this corner mate?

    This sniper on the roof.

    Anyone else?

    Not that I can see.

    OK, I am activating my guy and moving to the corner to get LOF to the sniper.

    Shit, sorry mate, it looks like this wafer thin cardboard Camo marker that is actually more than an inch tall when it comes to drawing LOF is also in LOF...

    A) ...do you wanna shuffle your guy back to where you can only see one?
    B) ...do you want to declare something else instead?
    C) ...GOTCHA BITCH!
     
  10. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    To be fair, from observations going back to the very first forum conversations that I recall reading/participating in on the matter, I think it's predominantly people who feel the reactive turn isn't as strong as they feel it should be. N3's introduction of abstracted LoF (silhouettes) and the etiquette blurb didn't do those players any favors. Seems like designers were intentionally moving the game in certain direction, but I guess if you don't like that direction you're going to fight back wherever you think you can.

    I think I may have already mentioned it earlier, but all the brand new players I encounter seem to think the cooperative dynamic and abstract mechanics not only make sense, but make the game more enjoyable.
     
  11. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    I was pretty over true LoS as soon as I saw the Noctifer sculpts.
     
    Abrilete and the huanglong like this.
  12. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    Yeah, and N2's true LoF was just stupid. You could literally stand in place, and spin a model to change LoF to/from it. Then, there were the models that were so small/narrow that you had maybe a 1/16" difference between being able to achieve cover and having no LoF at all (measuring from the center can burn in hell).
     
  13. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Sillies were great for the game
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  14. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    559
    How much time is too much time? Because if the choice is sloppy play or taking the needed time to precisely move my troop in to place.... I am going to play precisely and I will get my exact LoF I want anyway. Your BEST case scenario is we have to call a TO over each time you make me do it.
    Also lasers are pretty bad for figuring out exact LoF in infinity, I don't trust them at all unless you can stabilize it by putting it down or something.
     
  15. Alkasyn

    Alkasyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    591
    So you're saying you will intimidate me into playing the game your way? Nice, but you're breaking rule #1 this way, which is "Both players need to have fun". Btw in a case like you mention, that is when you repeatedly keep on calling for a TO because of LOF issues, I can see the reasoning going against you, anyway, as you're deliberately slowing down the game. BTW#2 Too much time is simply too much time, use common sense.
     
    FatherKnowsBest likes this.
  16. Cry of the Wind

    Cry of the Wind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    350
    I've found this entire thing confusing as to why its even a topic to be honest.

    Where I play we just place a silhouette template where we think our model will end up and ask if there are any possible non-hidden LoFs between there and the starting point (and we only do this if it isn't fully obvious) before declaring an order. If the model can't get there exactly then it might suffer from something but I don't think that has happened. Lasers are used to help on close calls and normally if it is too tough to call the answer is always no LoF. As far as I can tell you could just ask the other guy if some random point on the table has LoF to any of his models and they need to tell you (might be important for an AD guy in a later turn).

    At no point in the process have I even delcared an order or stated my intended outcome. Simply asked if there is LoF to a spot. If I move there and they say there is LoF from somewhere else then the move is allowed to be takening back as Open Information had been unintentionally withheld.

    As a new player I have also been given many order take backs over silly mistakes (though they show me no mercy on facing in their active turn :p) but that has nothing to do with my intent for triggering AROs nor is it part of the rules.
     
    #116 Cry of the Wind, Jan 2, 2018
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
  17. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    So when your opponent goes to make a move, and puts a silhouette at their target point and says "I want to move here to see your model A. I don't think I can see model B from here." What do you say? Do you heckle them for attempting to position their models intelligently? Do you say that their attempting to play smartly has made the game unfun for you?
     
  18. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    559
    Only if you consider thoughtful and carful play as intimidating.
    As for calling over the TO, I do agree that it would be a massive pain but why exactly would a TO single me out if it is both of us that disagree on LOF?
    As for common sense, I can tell you from experience that as time ticks on and it looks more and more likely that player 2 is not going to get his last turn that ANY time spent with thoughtful movement is going to feel extremely painful. However calling over the TO is what is really going to take all the time.

    The simple fact of the matter is that playing without intent is exactly like playing with intent except much slower and will need more TO callsto settle disputes over LoF.

    Hehe
    Placing the silhouette down and asking for possible non-hidden LoF's is stating your intended outcome if you think your opponent has to answer accurately. If you think your opponent is allowed to say "I don't know, I guess we will find out after you spend your order and move" is the entire nature of the argument. The people who don't play with intent are arguing you are not allowed to use a silhouette or be given an accurate answer to your LoF question.
     
    Cry of the Wind likes this.
  19. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    Making you play by the rules isnt intimidation
     
    Hecaton and Alphz like this.
  20. Alkasyn

    Alkasyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    591
    It's not as clear as you may want it to be.
     
    FatherKnowsBest, Stiopa and Mahtamori like this.
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