I'm sorry for interrupting debate between people who know about Infinity way more than i, but i have a question and i am ready to be verbally punished for my clueless and ignorance. As someone who plays Infinity with 2-3 friends for the last 2 years (meta is way bigger, it just me who finds the game as a way of spending my free time with friends, drinks few beers and have fun tatjer than play for win) i think i understand concepts of "playing intent" and "playing for gotcha", but if i do, then God help me, i am an abomination cause i play it even differently. So the first camp says that you can place shilouette before spending/declaring an order and ask for LoF to have that perfect, intended placement. Second way of playing is more chess-like - you place your trooper/marker as carefully as you can, you pray and you live with the consequences (most of the time, they look like sniper bullets or panzerfausts). This is the place where i might be wrong, because i never looked at the other games. Now, if you're not already correcting my statement above, i want to describe my/our way of playing. You spend the order, you declare it together with your intention ("i,m moving along the wall to that corner", "i'm running full speed into the open" "i'm peeking the corner to look for just that sniper"), you're politely asking your opponent for any LoF on this route, and (whils still having your troop "on your fingers") your finishing your short skill at the desirable place (corner with LoF to only one trooper, or stopping in the open because you have noticed rocket flying towards you after two feets) but youre not allowed to back your order or targets, or direction of move. Then, standard rest of things happens. Why tho? Because in a realistic situation, you are not running blindly towards the somehow kno2n to you enemy, ending your mov3 behind the corner, but with half of your body visible to another 3 tangos ("gotcha" scenario), nor you have oberwhelming power of your warrior ancestors (or drones) that allows you to sel3ct the most desirable outcome ("intent"; and as far as i know being connected to overwatching drone isnt a rule), nore you can redo your mistakes (and change your orders). What you want is to move to the corner (and during your movement watch out for any surprises, unless you are ballsy), peek out for any targets, and then ran away/engage. Now, it might be wrong, but i can assure you - we never had troubles with being not sportsmanlike. But that might be also the effect of many beers late. It doesnt bring much to the discussion, i just wanted to use that topic (or at least what is in its title) and ask you to correct my wrong playview. Cheers
Points: 1. When you declare a movement, you declare the path your model is going to take without being able to measure the distance along that path. 2. After you commit to the path, then you measure to see how far along you actually got. That does mean that you may discover that you tried to cross a 5" gap while only having 4" of move left, so you end up an inch short of your intended destination. 3. How on Earth do you play a reasonable game of Infinity without using markers or tokens to plot out on the table what movement path you're declaring? Especially since the entire movement path is going to matter for ARO (both line of sight and zone of control cares about the whole path, especially in edge cases.) and for attacks declared along the movement path. Once you've marked out the movement path, so that both players can see it, where's the issue for checking the line of sight along that path before committing to it? There is, after all, the blue box stating what it does about the ability to check line of sight.
Cheers, ik3rian. Do I understand correctly, that you stop the model's movement if something unexpected happens along the way? If so, this is indeed incorrect; in proper order sequence: 1) You declare your first short skill (in this case Move), move your mini and place it in its final destination. 2) Opponent declares his AROs - it might be a model you've wanted to get LoF with, but also a TO Camo sniper or Missile Launcher troop. 3) You declare your second short skill. So the model will always get to the position declared in the first short skill.
This, in triplicate with bells on. If your model gets knocked out, then they end up knocked out at the end to move, even if you receive the ARO at the start of the move, in the middle or somewhere else, they still finish the whole move. If they're killed, any objective marker they're carrying or synced civilians end up at the end of the movement path.
Yes the only real question is if you are allowed to determine who can see along the path before declaring it. Ie by looking at the relative position of troops on the table (HD obviously excluded)
Well ikarian, they are right as to the fact that even if your mini end being unconscious it has to finish its move. As to everything else, don't listen to them and don't read all this non sens debate on intend or gotcha thing. That's a secret joke between them. Actually they are trying to figure out the most efficient way to make sure nobody play Infinity anymore. Play the way you like, and especially if there are beers and fun, you got it right (unless someone argue that fun and beer are not covered by the rules). Actually the way I believe almost everybody play is more like you described it.
I'm drawing a line in the sand here: anyone that says fun isn't allowed is wrong, and will be shown the error of their ways. Anyone that says Beer isn't allowed? Gulag.
Just because the debate is big and heated, it does not mean that neither of the opposing groups want the best for Infinity, far from it both groups want the best for Infinity! In reality what both groups want is to know exactly how the rules are meant to be played each has their own interpretation about it and believe they are right, conflict comes because they are opposing views, but at the heart of it, both groups want the best for Infinity. Once the dust settles and we have a definite answer, we will have just that, an answer on how the game is supposed to be played. This does not change the fact that people will play the game as they enjoy it best with their friends, or how they feel it is better and if you feel your way of playing in your group is the most enjoyable for your group, play it your way.
I'm not 100% I'm sure that I know the intent of the writers. Let's say 95% sure. What I *do* know is that if "gotcha" was the *intent* of the rules, the writers have made a categorically worse decision than if they intended intent.
Minor correction on point 1. I don't think the movement rules are quite as strict anymore. You declare the direction and then measure. The path and final location is not actually finalised until after tape measures are whipped out. MOVING AND MEASURING You can measure immediately after declaring Move and before determining where the trooper ends his Movement. The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaration of the real movement's ending point. I read this asN N3actually specifically removed the need to exactly describe your movement path. Only the direction and intended final location. The actual path and final location is finalised after measuring.
Definitely not. You must describe the exact route when declaring the move. See the big red box under the Order Expenditure Sequence: 'All details and choices related to the execution of a Short Skill, Short Movement Skill, or Entire Order Skill must be specified when it is declared. For instance, if you declare a movement, specify the entire route...' My emphasis.
But the way alphz describe is the way we all play in my community, the way we play in every tournament I have attended, including interplanetario (and by we I mean me and my opponent. I even. Let they cancel order if aro don't suit them !). It's the most intuitive, casual and at the same time sportsman way to play. With all the games on the market, Infinity is complicated enough without introducing more complexity. You guys on this forum can debate all you want, I will keep playing that way and teaching the game that way. PS : unless the to order us to play another way but I still have to find such a to.
You have to describe the whole movement path, or else you can't declare AROs, or attacks from any point but the start and end of the move. Taking the order back because the ARO isn't favorable is pretty much counter intuitive to the whole game. Say I have a model in full cover 0.1 inch from the edge of a building you have an hmg pointed at and I move it so it's in full cover 0.2 inches from the edge. You don't declare ARO because you never know where the model went, but I declare that I actually moved out past the corner into the open and use my pistol to shoot at the hmg. You now say that you are shooting with the hmg and a hidden deployment trooper with a boarding shotgun that is also looking at the corner. I don't like the ARO, so I take my move back, and send in a sniffer next order to reveal your HD guy... Nobody can stop you from playing a house rule, but you should be aware that it's a house rule, and that you can't force it on anyone else, and when the rules are actually clear with little to no interpretation, EG the requirement of describing the whole movement path, if you don't follow them because you disagree with them, then at some point, you're not really playing the same game at all. If you play casually a house rule is fine, but if you're travelling to an organised tournament then you should be making your best effort to play the game by the rulebook, or by the TO or judge's interpretation of the rule where there is a discrepancy or contradiction in the rules. You probably hadn't come across a TO that ordered you to describe the movement paths because it's very hard to interpret the rule quoted by IJW in any way other than a requirement to do so...
Except when doing a silent move no, cause there is usually no need to. I will say move, grab the meter, measure up to where I can go and move the model, precising which path I'm taking if not obvious, most of the time saying "I assume there is no aro, let me know if I'm misjudging something" or "there should be A and B aro, do you agree ?" and if we don't eventually cancelling the action. On the other hand if my opponent move in the open, I warn him of possible aro when he moves the model, and let him take back its action if we disagree on how many aro there are. This might occur, for exemple, if he forgot about a model hidden in a corner he can't see from his side of the table. You call it house rule. From my experience it's the way almost everybody play, including in major tournaments here. When introducing the game to people used to play, let say 40k, do you show them the declaration process with the silhouette and all ? Did you successfully convert any player that way ?
So you measure the distance and then move the model while saying where it's moving? And yes, all demos and intro games I run for players involve specifying the exact movement route before measuring the distance, although not by placing a Silhouette at the end point. It's one of the points to differentiate the game from 40k etc.
@Marduck ¯\_(⊙︿⊙)_/¯ I dunno what to tell you dude... The discussion/argument here was if you're allowed to ask if any model or marker has line of fire to a potential movement before you declare the movement, branching off in a couple of specific areas of contention. The result of your method of play is effectively the same as the intent based line of fire to any point of the table is open information side of the issue, but the road you get there is a bit different, and pretty much the opposite of the one part of rules that can't be interpreted differently... The way you describe, you're moving models back to the start point when you trigger an ARO accidentally, you might be able to ask if the path you intend to take can trigger an ARO before you decide to declare the order, but if you declare it then it happens, though it can be cut short by running out of movement value... If you want to be super friendly about an order your opponent has totally blanked on and run something into certain death because they weren't paying attention or distracted etc, that's decent of you(and honestly I probably would too 9 times out of 10), but it's going a bit further than the level of sportsmanship I'd personally expect in return.
What you're doing sounds an awful lot like pre measurement bu measuring where you can go before declaring your movement path. That's a pretty clear cut no no as I understand it. If you declare a movement path then find yourself short of distance to make it you simply go as far as you can then stop. It's your own fault for misjudging the distance and much like eyeballing rangebands for shooting. For context I'm in the camp that finds lof checking permissable by the rules In this thread's argument, and I'd still take issue with what you're doing in a game and ask you to stop.
I think you guys and marduck may be on different pages. I think hes trying to talk more about who can see him along said path and coming to an agreement with his opponent before declaring the order. Not actually measuring before he has declared the order
I declare move, who and where to, measure, move my model. But except for silent move, where the rules clearly say you have to guess, why does it matter ? Well I'm not going to argue with you guys. No time, no will and I think there is no point. I never had to ask myself or my opponent all these questions you are debating about. And even a if I had I would just ask the TO. It happens I have some free time now, read the post by ikarian and alphz basically saying "what is the point of all of this" and wanted to say #metoo. Probably should have abstain as I have nothing of interest to add. Edit : +1 with daboarder. I'm not talking about premesuring. You got me wrong.
