Tournoment Rules Question

That's one way to put it.

 

Why you gotta be so mean, man?

 

I haven't dip my toe in this particular debate for quite some time but this make me want to talk about it again

The ruleset has a part about game aids for LoF, "holding a tape measure" is given as an example. That's nowhere close to a visual estimate

That's not the way I have seen intent being played in the few meta I met, so I don't see the problem here

All player I met use intent on the basis that "if you can't do it on the table, then you can't do it". From what I have seen, what you say here is fiction not actual gameplay.

Ok, what ? People have written pages and pages of argument about how play by intent is what RAW/RAI mean but you come here and say « most PBI defender now they are wrong but do it anyway ».

I feel a bit insulted reading that

This I mostly agree on. As long as player are both ok playing one way and it's not a problem in the competitive game (which is not because people play intent), CB doesn't need to step in (mostly)

 

According to some people, the game crashes every single time they play and their models get erased from the table. The rest of us act like adults and talk about the game as we play.

 

Our policy is to have no policy... or we could just partition it, like Ireland, India, Cyprus and Palestine.

 

And seems even more relevant day by day...

 

For what it's worth, in practice there's almost no difference. Almost everyone plays with intent, as in, 'I'm going to move up to that corner to see X, then duck back as far as I can' followed by 'OK, they didn't go down I'll do the same again'.

The only bit I see players disagree on in person is infinitely-fine pie-slicing to pick off reactive troopers that are standing next to each other.

 

If you look at the Infinity rules and then expect to see a two hundred plus page Tournament Rules like Magic the Gathering has, or the half dozen page Judges Guidelines like Privateer Press has (which they continue to stress only applies to Privateer Press run events and not to Steamroller events run by volunteers), you’re looking for something that CB doesn’t produce.

It is possible to go to two different ITS tournaments run by two different people you’re going to encounter different choices in terrain, terrain density, missions, scheduling, and probably play styles. Not to mention different choices among the official options. And when that happens, they’re both going to be equally valid Infinity experiences.

 

You don't think that this is kind of a loaded question? CB does not hold the exclusive right to run an ITS tournament – in fact they don't run any ITS tournaments. Members of the community do. There are no CB police demanding that you play a certain way and disqualifying your game if you don't listen.

Nobody is confused. People here play the game the way they, and their friends, want to play it. we may butt heads sometimes but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone in a comatose like state because of the rules. Regardless, even if there was some type of stone tablet somewhere that said "INTENT" or "NO INTENT" do you think that the vast majority of people would suddenly change?

This literally has nothing to do with game design. this is an etiquette and conceptual issue.

 

Next round of personal attacks from anybody to anybody will make the thread close.

I understand it is difficult to ask but we expect a civil level of discussion.

 

Better yet, don't say any of that stuff about what you hope the model will do. At all.

Move your model, stop where it looks good. See what happens. Takes a second.

 

I would see it as more "mean" to players who are unfamiliar with how the game is actually played to make them think that the issue is more contentious than it is.

 

I think a perfect example of the style of play I see in Infinity was last night. I had a camo marker that I activated and declared a move toward the end of a building. The end of the building was clearly within 4". I stated, "I want to move as far along the wall and stop before that model can see me." My opponent then looked down the table and told me when to stop. We didn't fight or fuss. I moved the model forward and we moved on.

 

Which you're more than welcome to do. You and your opponent should talk about it beforehand. But if you want to play that way, go for it.

 

No offense intended, but that's a cop-out.

"Tight" rules and "narrative/story/casual" play are not mutually exclusive.

The rules of a game are a framework, yes, but that does not mean game rules should be ambiguous. In fact, unambiguous rules work far better as a common ground for social interaction because participants can take comfort in the fact that they speak the same 'language'.

Prevailing local interpretations of ambiguous rules essentially creates a set of 'dialects' that one may or may not be fluent in. It can lead to misunderstandings and conflict.

Not only that, but tight, unambiguous, and functional rules do not preclude the opportunity to use the rules as a malleable framework.

Players can always agree to change or modify or adapt game rules. The rules do not have to be ambiguous in order for you to do that. Moreover, the Infinity rules, and the ITS system in particular, communicate an intention for the rules to specifically be clear-cut, regulated, and consistent.

In short, the Infinity ITS rules are supposed to be a universal language, and yet every TO has to develop his or her own dialect.

 

I thought they were to boost miniatures sales by bringing new life to models and lists that were previously unpopular or largely untaken. Rinsed, repeated. Then have those models that were in blisters repackaged into boxes.

Learn something new everyday.

 

Why? play with intent if you want to play with intent, don't play with intent if you don't want to play with intent.

This is incredibly misleading, while also utterly and totally inequivalent to any of the things you've listed. You seem unsure of what exactly a "rule" is to be honest. The rules of infinity are clearly defined. How you, individually, choose to use or apply those rules are not.
The concept of "Intent" is nowhere mentioned in rules, it is a concept invented by players to create a game that runs smoother and is ultimately more enjoyable for them and their opponent. It is a concept, not a rule. It is a way to apply the rules, not the rules itself. The best we have about "intent" in the rules are bits and pieces about etiquette and LoF, which some people like to extrapolate.

As a side not: you're also wrong if you think professional sports don't have rules disputes or there isn't a discrepancy between different leagues of play.