In light of recent discussion about protocol for playing Infinity, I wanted to be draw attention to the following: In this video, Plebian takes us through both practical demonstration and full rationalization of what is meant when we talk about "playing by intent". For those who don't know Plebian, he has been (and continues to be) of the US' foremost competitive players. He has spent multiple years in the US Top 3, often as the #1 ranked player, and has represented North American with podium-place finishes at Interplanetary. I mention these antecedents because I believe competitive experience has a critical role in fully interpreting a ruleset, as well as the protocol between two players for using that ruleset on the table. My favorite thing about this video is that there's no speculation here; no "theoryhammer", no "armchair generalship", and no musings by enclave groups or individuals with little practical Infinity experience to their name. Instead, this video reflects the accumulated perspective of years of competitive Infinity play across many metas. This mode of play, colloquially called "Intent", maximizes play speed and efficiency while maintaining the collaborative attitude and gentlemanly conduct which is one of the great hallmarks of the Infinity rulesystem. I'm a competitive Infinity player myself, with event wins under my belt and Top 5 ITS season finishes over the last couple of years. If I'm playing a game, I'm seeking to play it competitively. Having played a lot of tabletop systems, Infinity is my preferred system, because it is both competitive and collaborative. This video illustrates both the collaborative ethos and the practical conduct for playing a game of Infinity with your opponent, and not just against them. My thanks go out to all who helped make this video, for providing the community with a useful tool.
@Koni @psychoticstorm @Bostria Please be aware of this video and what it is describing in your current discussions about the rules and clarification.
I think it must be stated that this video is in no way official and may, or may not be in parts or fully true to any official clarification on the subject. A necessity given the current hotness of the subject. Thanks for posting it though.
Neither was the other, obviously that goes without saying considering Plebian himself state that many times.
I think that he's just cautioning people so they don't take it as gospel. Obviously, @psychoticstorm disagrees with the conclusion of the video but there's another issue on top of that.
It does put the claim that it's just a small group of dedicated forum users who are for Intent in a broader context though. It's a very carefully and well expressed video by a very well respected and credible expert in my opinion. Ultimately it's up to CB what the rules of their game are, but this makes it quite clear "Intent" is a very reasonable, conventional and supported way to play across the world. That's good information to have.
Wow that was a very good video. Maybe we can get one from the other side of the argument using the same format. I would suggest Wolfs but maybe one that is not also guilty of some intent play would be better. =D
I personally have doubt to the playability of some of what is being talked about. Seeing it in action is very helpful I feel.
I simply do not want another thread erupting, that is all. I think I have said it again, I have not discussed my personal preference on the debate, but since my position is to represent the official rules and way to play the game, I will wait for CB to officially resolve it.
I think the big concern I have over the first video, is the example of the fusilier versus the Kriza Borak and the Alguaciles, it creates an unstoppable force versus immovable object scenario, Kriza and the Alguaciles moved with the intent of both seeing the corner and responding, but nothing stops the fusilier to declare moving to the corner with the intent of only seeing one model, making the first intent declaration moot. Essentially infinite pie slicing in effect. Since not all intent declarations can be equal, given this scenario, the question now becomes which declaration is the one that trumps the others, the already established? or the active players? or is it a case by case scenario? and how these are resolved. Please do not take it as an attempt undermine intent, I have never seen intent been played with ARO in mind only as an active player tool and this is the first think that came to my mind when I saw the video, I literally thought why does he move with intent to see both and get both ARO and not move with the intent to see only one. So how is this resolved?
You still work out if the Fusilier can actually do that. What the Aug/Kirza are doing is common and if done correctly they exist in the same LOF plane and you cannot 'slice the pie' as the active model as you will always get the 3mm square on both at the same time. Beyond this video, I would have dropped a laser line from the corner to assist my placement of the Kirza so its actually precise enough to then assist in your scenario quickly and show that it isn't possible to do.
I thought about making it more precise but I did have the aguicile prone to better assist LoF. Please look at this diagram if you have questions about the intended locations
No ? The way angles work is that you cannot pie slice 2 models if one is higher than the other and they are at the same angle towards the corner of the building where Fusilier is .....
I, too, have a problem with declaring intent to a piece of scenery (what I call "second degree intent"), but that's for game balance sakes more than anything and I do note that the example in the video were glossed over pretty heavily since the Kriza was allowed to stand there while still touching the walls. That said, it doesn't create a a collision of intents since both players have already agreed that both the Alguaciles and the Kriza have line of fire perfectly in line with the corner - but it does create what I consider to be needless book-keeping (will we remember this 20 minutes and 3 other similar declarations from now?) and really messes with the core of the intent mechanic's intention if so much as the slightest exception occurs (for instance, the Pan-O moves a Bulleteer up instead of the Fusilier, which has a different radius and height). For me, personally, I would say first degree intent is the most reasonable thing to do as it keeps both players playing a tactical game where their tactical decisions determines the outcome without creating needless book-keeping. Then again, I also really dislike using intent to slice pies and both actively avoid getting into situations where I need it and setting up AROs where this is possible for myself. Also, I just realized that the Kriza that killed my LT this Saturday was in "plain view" of said LT because he's taller and wouldn't have LOS blocked by a Celestial Guard. DOH.
