Infinity – Moving Forward With the Result – The DiRT

12313541_1056679471042979_624730620278637474_n

Intent vs Playing the Result #2, here’s all the details you wanted Infinity fans.  I hope this helps.

Top Photo by Erich Brackmann painting by Gena Sobolev

So, my last article, who would have guessed that it would have garnered so much “discussion”?  Not me.  There has been nearly a week of people leaving positive and negative (mostly negative) comments about the details of the article.  I was asked on a podcast what I had expected to hear from the article.  In all honesty, I thought a handful of T.O.s would have balked a little, but that it was going to get implemented and we’d move on.  What can I say, I was wrong about the amount of response.

I got a response from someone saying that the article did not have enough detail, that it did not go into the why’s.  I originally was taken aback by this comment, but I realized that there’s a lot of truth to it.  I did not take you all on the journey that led me to ask the questions.  The journey that made me come to the realization of what I wrote about as intent is inherently game breaking.  What I’d like to do with this article, is to walk you back through all of it.  Along the way I will address some concerns that I heard, and I will leave it to you to think about.  

I am not the bad guy.

I am not looking to dismantle the Infinity community.

 I have spent a lot of time building it up, it would be a waste to undo any of that.

11049505_1737918859753745_8900000908060370081_o

Photo by Neill McManus

So we begin….

Let me clear up a few things.

  1. Playing the result in no way removes the idea of declaring your orders.  Nor does it mean that you should not talk to you opponent.  The social nature of wargaming is a key differentiator to some other forms of entertainment.
  2. Using the word “intend” in and of itself does not mean you are playing with Intent with regards to this article or the previous.  There were a few people who tried to tell me that they saw a video with Carlos explaining what he was going to do with saying that he intends for his model to do x.   This is simply Carlos declaring his orders.
  3. Intent, as I’m describing here focuses on only one thing.  Using words to describe what you want to have happen that dictates the outcome.  “I intend to move my model to point x” is a declaration of an order and is not what I’m writing about.  “I intend to move my model to the corner of the terrain piece in such a way that I will only see one of my opponent’s miniatures” is using a sentence to subjugate the rules to your will.  This is the equivalent of using game aids to get the same result.  No one is that accurate.  Expecting this behavior from an individual model of yours is a power-gaming mindset.  I will return to this later in the article.

The War Against the Reactive Player

I originally did not set out to write an article about Intent vs Play the Results.  I originally set out to write an article to help new players who were forced to go second learn how to deploy.  This can be confirmed with a handful of people, including Nestor from the WGC Infinity website.  Attached to that particular article, I was going to include a video on my YouTube channel titled “Do you even Deploy?” where I did a very tongue and cheek discussion about things a lot of people do that makes for a bad deployment.  As I continued to write the article, I started to realize that no matter how a person deployed, their hard work was dismantled as soon as the active player was allowed to used the term “I intend to only have a face to face against one of the reactive players models”.  The use of game aids to assist and end up with the same result is equally broken.

I lined up a model directly centered and behind another model only elevated on a hill to illustrate how damaging this mentality can be.  Due to visual rules of distance, if both models have the same silhouette, then the model up on the hill’s width will appear thinner than the one in front.  This means that you can, at a nanometer level dictate via intent that your active model will only have to face off with the front player.  How is it possible that a model so perfectly lined up defensively should not be able to shoot at the active player coming around that shipping container?  If you rely on Intent, you run into this issue.

bols-example4

Some of you will say that that is of course too far.  But where do you draw the line?  Where do you state this intent statement is okay, this other one is not?  I had a hard time trying to find where the line exists.  For those of you who are starting to see why there is an issue with “Intent”, thank you for opening your mind to that possibility.  For those of you who are unconvinced, we’ll keep going.

The Assumption of Fewer Arguments.

One of the most frequent arguments that I get about intent is that it reduces arguments.  

The only reason that there is assumed less argument, is that there is a collective agreement to subjugate the reactive player.  Don’t believe me?  Ask yourself, Do I allow people to deploy with intent?  Do you allow your opponent to place their models anywhere and state that they are set up in such a way that no matter how you approach that group of models, you will have to respond to at least 2 aros against your model?  Of course you don’t.  This would run into a massive cluster.  But the reactive player is supposed to allow you to do the EXACT same thing in response.

12395397_1802365849990587_1378703058_n

Photo by Alex Hagerman

The Overuse of Game Aids

One of the hardest questions I received is to respond to using game aids to line up exactly where your model should be.  Let’s assume it’s that nanometer discussion from earlier in the article.  The argument provided to me was that if I say Intent is wrong, then I should defend the use of laser pointers that net the same result.

Only, it’s the active player’s ability to dismiss the reactive player’s deployment that is the problem.  So I don’t think I should defend the use of game aids to subjugate the ARO rules either. Game aids, like laser pointers should be used to determine AROs after the fact.

Moving a miniature a millimeter at a time

Please refer to the overuse of game aids above.  The moving of a miniature a millimeter at a time is wrong as well.  Sure, someone should be able to walk around a table and see where their opponent’s models are located.  Then you pick up your miniature and move it.  Want to know why rechecking AROs a millimeter at a time is wrong?  Because the way that movement skills work is “You’re able to get to said location regardless of what happens to you in ARO”.  You can’t be stopped.  At the point you check for AROs after you declare your movement and move, that is the conclusion of your movement for that short skill.  So go ahead and move a millimeter at a time.  you will chew up all your orders and it will look like you never left your deployment zone.

12341644_10102260769985987_2316327600519057852_n

Photo by Derek Fleetwood

Going Back to Infinity 101

When I demo Infinity at GenCon, I explain….

  1. Declare your first short skill.  If it’s a movement skill, move the miniature so that you can see where you line up and AROs get determined.
  2. Determine if there is an existence of AROs.
  3. Declare your second short skill.  If it’s a movement skill, move the miniature so that you can see where you land.  Determine AROs again.

At no point do I state, lay down a reasonable debate and assumption that will circumvent the rules.

Using the Intent methodology is not a show of skill or tactics.  It is cleanly delineating that your veteran players are good because they can debate the game better.

Powergaming

So I get people applying arguments from both sides of the fence on this one, so I’m not quite sure how to answer this.  I will say that I agree, it’s both.  

Intent can be training wheels for new players who will be overwhelmed with the rest of the Infinity ruleset.  But even in this situation, I would push for new players to play against new players and play the result.  Intent is for that vet player who doesn’t know how to simplify things for a new player.

Intent can also be abused, as mentioned above, to be a powergaming nightmare.  The only reason some people may not have seen it as a powergaming is that enough people have agreed to it.  And the powergaming disease is shared, people take turns with it.  This doesn’t make it right, it just is why people are arguing for Intent.

12360042_10153268074758372_100448265002194715_n

Photo by Bryant Vichainarong

The Gotcha Method

Some people have responded by belittling what I have tried to explain by renaming “Play the Result” as “The Gotcha Method”.  I’m bringing this up here, because it was brought up so often.  To be clear, if this is the only argument you have, you don’t have an argument.  I tried very hard to leave “Intent” as a descriptor alone.  I think it accurately defines the methodology.  The sad truth is that Intent is the Gotcha method to the reactive player.  With the exception of hidden deployed models, the active player is fully aware of everything going on with the defensive player.  There is no “Gotcha” to be had.

When you have a reactive player, who has been diligent in their deployment, being told that they are not allowed to appreciate those tactics, gotchas abound.

Speed of Gameplay

This is the last argument that I receive.  I’m not sure that with Intent you can play a quick game of Infinity.  Or better, that it could be possibly faster than move my model and we determine the results.  Let’s go back to that conversation with intent.  The reactive player is agreeing to be subjugated by the active player and helps them move that model back and forth until the model threads the needle to be in a singular face-to-face situation.  Compare that to move the model once and figure out what happens.  Speed of game play goes to Play the Result.

10339285_1737919019753729_4916082409740844154_o

Photo by Neill McManus

Other Concerns

I want to address other concerns that I think might be at play here.  I realize I’m stepping in potentially dangerous waters.  I am lead to believe that these things are holding people back from even considering Playing the Result.  These are concerns that have not been unambiguously brought to my attention.

  1. Agreeing with Play the Result does not mean that you are forbidden to play with Intent with your friends.  The article last week talked about this very thing.  Just because you may know the NFL rules of gameplay doesn’t mean that you necessarily have to use it with every game of two hand touch.  This is not a comment about how hard core or soft you are.  This is to say that when you’re playing with your friends, the house rules you come up with that make the game fun for you is not the common social contract that should be applied when you’re playing against people you don’t know.  It does mean that you should practice with Play the Result before you enter into tournament situations.  This is what will make life easier for your T.O.  Tournament organizers need to be afforded a lot of praise for all of the things they do.  
  2. Agreeing with Play the Result does not mean that if you originally played with Intent that you should be “scolded” for your behavior.  I have talked to more than one player who admitted that they were against my article because they were worried that they would be not be taken seriously with regards to rules in the future or labeled a cheater.  Logic and common sense should win out here.  When someone brings up a good logical argument, it should be assimilated into the way you address the rules.
  3. Fear of going against the assumed grain.  A poll came out saying do you play with Intent or As it Lands.  Again, I would be hopeful that if the poll was in response to my article that it would have been Play the Result, but this is such a minor gripe because so many other comments listed it as “Play it as it Lands”.  The reason I bring it up though, Intent players were very much on the attack and drew a huge support base.  I appreciated the way the poll was drafted though.  It was “How are you playing Infinity”, not “How do you think you might play moving forward”.  And I think it speaks volumes about where we all are at, but it’s not “proof” as some Intent players were quick to show me.  When some people asked questions in the poll, they were immediately pushed by Intent players.  I’m not trying to vilify a group based on a handful of malignant participants.  But I can see how I might not want to deal with the same harsh language.  All I can say, is that Playing the Result is nowhere near as unpopular as some would like you to think.  I was on a podcast on Sunday where a tournament was held on Saturday following my article.  Collectively, the group decided to “Play the Result”.  No one suffered.

Next Steps

Before you return to lay down a deluge of comments either pro or against, take the time to actually try “Playing the Result”.  Also, play against someone you like.  If you play against someone you think is a moron, you’re pre-defining the results.

Humor is Important

A lot of people seemed to be involved with making the following image happen.  I appreciate the work that went into it….

12347906_10156272908185324_8215163770790847592_n

 

More Awesome Infinity Goodness (Images from the Web)

12342687_10207010192347574_3558739897693214439_n

photo by Tommy Back

This was the news, the skinny, and the DiRT on the journey toward Playing the Results.  I’m hope this answers more questions then we did before.  As always, you can reach me in the comments below, on my Facebook page, or YouTube Channel.  Ladies and Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

  • Yeah, sorry, still not a chance. Intent is probably the best thing Infinity has going for it, it means both players get to bring their A-game and are not beaten down by crappy moments where their opponent springs a surprise ARO on them because you moved 1/32″ further than you intended to fire at your target. Playing by your “where it lands” means wasting far more time judging exactly the precise number of MM to move around a corner before they duck back.

    • WellSpokenMan

      Re: Line of Fire
      “the troop must be able to see, at least part of the volume of it’s target with the size of the target’s head, or a minimum size of approximately 3mmx3mm (the size of the squares on the Silhoutte Template). p. 18
      LoF is open info. If you ask me if specific models have LoF and I answer no, I have given up on any AROs from those models. However, if you say I’m moving where model A can react and Model B can’t, and that’s not possible, then whatever your intent is, you are cheating. It’s also not my responsibility to map out your moves for you. You make the decision and I will verify when and if you ask. This is a usually 3-turn game, if it turns into a circus then it’s the player’s fault, not the rules.
      I like Infinity because it captures the intensity of a firefight on the tabletop. If someone starts pulling out crap like I’m going to move the precise number of mm to do x, they’re ruining spirit of the game. They should go back to 40k or better yet, go to law school and earn some money doing what they love.

      • I agree entirely, but in the author’s example, you’re not doing anything illegal by slicing the pie to see the front model from the right side. If you’re trying to do it to the left, you’ll get seen by both as they share the same silhouette boundary to the left.

        Playing by intent isn’t trying to do something physically impossible, it’s showing that you are trying to do something that is specifically possible. Knowing that all LOS is considered fully public information, there is nothing wrong about asking if a position is in LOS of some and not others, and at what point you would be in the LOS arc of the only model you intend to shoot at. Obviously if that’s impossible, you’ll get shot by both, but there’s nothing wrong with slicing it so you can only see one.

        If you play it as the author suggests, the game gets slowed way down as the active player must carefully analyze the LOS of every enemy model on the board and note where their LOS would end so that they could accomplish their task. It would turn into a game of argument and micro-measuring, instead of a game of tactics, and we really don’t need another game that’s going to promote severe lawyering.

        • WellSpokenMan

          I took his points a bit differently, but I agree with what the game should be. So we would have no problem playing each other.

  • shadow_fox

    Our group plays the best of both to be honest, though i do find the arguments for both sides fairly complete. Personally i think leaning to hard on either end is more prone to being met with resistance and hostility from an opponent at a tourney scene. We use intent mainly for “matter of fact” or “obvious” things, such as “my ninja’s hair gets in the way and she can’t hug the wall at that exact facing”.

    The main argument i agree with in favour of the result is the active player being able to dismantle an entire set of ARO ready figures (maybe in suppressing fire etc) by “intending” to deal one at a time.

    I can only think of a couple of player i know of on local scene that play via the millimetre nudging method and honestly I would always just apply rule 7: Don’t take the piss.

    • The problem is that LOS is considered public info, so you can totally ask if a position is in LOS of their models, and at what point the LOS ends. Playing by intent speeds up this process, instead of having to manually slice the pie for each and every model (imagine how tedious this would be each time you wanted to peek around a corner?).

      In the example the author gave above, the guy in front could only be sliced out from one side, if you try it the other way, you’ll get shot by both. It’s up to the reactive player to position themselves in the best way to maximize their ARO’s, which he failed in doing from that angle, and it’s up to the active player to minimize as much risk as possible.

      • doremicom

        not true, any amount would be legit since you have to be able to fully see one box. and this is where the problem lies. It doesn’t matter how much.

        • I’m not sure what you’re saying, any amount isn’t the same as a box, you have to see a box, lol. The example shows them both with the same left edge with different right edges, if the player was slicing the pie to see the left, he’d get shot by both, if he was slicing the pie to the right, he could pick out the one in front.

          • doremicom

            so with intent, you could stop where the guy infront gets a whole box, and the guy behind gets all but a millimeter of a box (boxes are 3mm squared). and now you have a case… by the way, I’m saying this is nonsense if you approached from either direction.

          • Yup, if you want to cover yourself with an ARO, you’d better make sure you’re in the right position, had the player moved his tank hunter slightly to the left we wouldn’t be in this predicament. It looks like he put his tank hunter in a bad spot to cover the corner in debate. Hell, had the player when he moved that tank hunter to cover that corner so that the model in front can’t be singled out, had just said that’s what he intends to do, this whole conversation wouldn’t have come up either and nobody would be checking if he’s a fraction of a MM out of place. It’s amazing how much time could be saved if people just communicated their intent, eh?

    • Nat Lanza

      The thing about dealing with the ARO-ready figures one at a time is that it isn’t free — you spent a bunch of orders slicing the pie like that, and if you’re playing ITS orders are the most precious thing you have.

      Many times the defending force *isn’t* trying to kill the active player’s models. They’re simply trying to make it so that accomplishing the active player’s objectives costs too many orders.

      • doremicom

        Nat, if that were true, if orders was that precious of a resource over surviving models, this would never come up, you’d just get in there and tackle multiple AROs at a time so you could take out multiple opponents at a time, whether or not they were in a link team.

        • Nat Lanza

          Sometimes people do!

          It’s not an ‘always’ or ‘never’ thing, it’s a tactical decision. Deploying so that your opponent has to decide whether to spend multiple orders dealing with the defenses or go the risky route and split bursts to take out more than one at a time is providing your opponent with a sometimes-tough tactical choice.

          I prefer to play a game where the figures on the board are representations of an abstract game state, and the real challenge is outthinking your opponent in that abstract game state.

          I want to win because I presented the opponent with a puzzle they couldn’t solve, not because they happened to push a little metal soldier 1cm further around a corner than they meant to.

  • NeonPhoenix

    Sigh… look dude. It all made sense to me why the 2 articles
    with all its heavy hammering of “I’m right and you’re all wrong!” vibe is coming from.. when I read your comment “the slippey slope of intent has really gotten out of hand at my area where people talk about approaching a well bunkered 5 man link team, and their intent is to move up just enough to only be in line of sight of one of those opponents.”

    It clicked.

    It’s appears to me that, what is otherwise a well-established
    “tactic” heck even just plain good advice (that’s been run through the mill of podcasts and forums posts), of tackling link teams, is using your models to pick your fights one on one with a member of the link team help reduce incoming ARO’s (i.e pick your battles), don’t charge head long into the bunkered link
    team (unless it’s a cheap-o chainrifle suicide run.. which in itself is another whole other tactic for dealing with link teams…).

    It got under your skin. It sucks when you link team gets torn apart a model at a time. It happens…
    your opponent didn’t power game you, he simply played within the rules to move within the realm of possibility to tackle one and not multiple members of your link team.

    “I intend to move my model to the corner of the terrain piece in such a way that I will only see one of my opponent’s miniatures” is using a sentence to subjugate the rules to your will”.

    Sigh, no just no. it’s not a player “debating” you down. If that model can legitimately move such that it will only see one of your models and the other model is sufficiently obstructed, then that’s life.

    Of course, if it was never possible for them to move in any
    manner to pick out that one model and yet tried to argue some “intent” line, now you got a different issue of actual cheating beyond the realm of possibility and yes I agree that’s WAAC, cheatin territory.

    Ash (I believe) commented it best last round and it’s really
    all that needs to be said anymore “What I’m saying is that declaring your intent doesn’t mean that you can do the impossible. Simply saying ‘I expose myself only enough to see X’ doesn’t mean that it’s possible to do so. Likewise, not declaring intent at all and simply moving models can lead to wasted time, arguments and is frankly, poor communication in general.

    What I’m saying is that these things aren’t binary. They’re BOTH an important part of order declaration but that neither exists without the other.”

    Look if dude A, politely asks “if I were to move to this point would an LOF be generated from that model and that model?” if yes, how about this point a little further back, how about just
    that model for LOF, now? Just him, now? okay great, I declare to move my guy to this point as we just discussed” that’s in a way expressing intent, that’s declaration, that checking/asking about all possible line of fire for all figures and markers could disrupt the declaration of a given order.

    That’s an example of the gamer’s etiquette as per the BRB. Which again states “GAMING ETIQUETTE checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it. Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and
    sportsmanlike manner. Honesty and fair play are conducive to a better gaming atmosphere, and all players benefit from that.

    Your line of “At the point you check for AROs after you declare your movement and move, that is the conclusion of your movement for that short skill.” Whilst is true,doesn’t restrain your opponent under the gaming etiquette above, to check possible lines of line for potential ARO’s beforehand. again no “gotcha” moments.

    In your example, if it’s within the possibility for the enemy to
    move to a point where by model A’s volume is blocking Models B’s LOF, then the enemy move in such way, that’s the result, that’s’ how the cookie crumbles. It happens.

    LOF rules were written with the very understanding that one’s
    models volume can obstruct another models volume. It can result in feeling like your “perfectly lined up ARO’s” disappear and you feel “cheated”, but it’s clearly a “result” of the rules. From one side you gain 2 aros from another angle you lose could legitimately lose out as it sufficiently blocked. that’s “how she goes”.

    At the end of the day, don’t take 5 laser points to slice the pie, nor try to “intent” beyond reality, the game works with “intent” to avoid the got-cha game play and smooth out movement and those partial not partial cover gray areas, and avoids the i can see you dude through 3 windows in the back field “gotcha”. never forget the human element in a table top games and you won’t go wrong.

    • WellSpokenMan

      I think a lot of this comes down to what you want from the game and whether you’ve seen “intent” abused. I’m playing the game for fun, not to prove I’m better than the other person. I’d like to be better, but it’s not my priority. When someone starts pushing the boundaries of reality, I’m going to suggest he have a beer and chill out. The same thing goes for laser pointer guy. Games are supposed to be fun.
      If you’ve used “intent” and it’s not been an issue, then you are lucky enough to be playing in a group where everyone wants similar things out of the game. As the game grows though, it will gather people who are used to rules lawyering games to death.

      • I don’t think anyone is arguing to allow declaring “intent” to break the rules. If the only way to move into position of one model is to be in LOS of another, all the intent in the world wont stop that. If the player wanted to attack that Tank Hunter, he is going to trigger an ARO from the guy in front, no matter how much intention they declare. 🙂

      • scadugenga

        I’ve played 3 years of Adepticon tournaments, been to the Invitational at Gencon both years, the inaugural Midwest Massacre team tournament and ridiculous numbers of smaller tournaments since 2012. I have seen intent abused only once.

        I would say the reverse is true. Intent being played fairly *is* the norm.

        If this is changing, I believe it would be due to the influx of new players coming from more waac systems who haven’t figured out how to adjust their gaming paradigm yet.

        • Gavin Bateman

          I could only up vote this once

        • WellSpokenMan

          I agree, but in my meta people play tight and clean. They communicate clearly and if we can teach new players to play the same way, the instances of this will stay in the minority. If “that guy” that abuses the system gets called out instead of tolerated, it will help keep the game enjoyable for everybody.

          • Rob Bent

            What exactly is tight and clean? and communicating clearly is exactly what playing with intent is all about. If your not playing with intent then more than likely there will more communication errors.
            I have played lots of things over the years and playing where it falls I have seen abused far more than intent ever has or can be.

          • WellSpokenMan

            We have different definitions here. Intent as most players are describing it is just declaring orders and confirming open information imo. That player communication is what makes this game great, imp. Playing intent as I originally understood (and opposed it) is saying things like “I am going to move this model to where I won’t trigger an ARO”. This is overly vague as it doesn’t specify what models LoF the player is trying to avoid. That is sloppy. I also had the same player declare his intent was to stay out of my hackers zone of control. That is not open info, as LoF is.

            Orders get declared and LoFs are open info. The book explicitly states this, so I assumed that these ideas were included in ‘playing it as it stands.” I’ve only ever seen one player abuse “intent” as it is being described by most posters. So this whole thing seems like a non-issue. I realize that people are angry, but for the most part, it seems like people are forcing opposing views on the people they wish to argue with.

    • Really, I wish I could give more up-votes

  • shadow_fox

    I can honestly say though that this has not come up at any tournament I have attended over the past year or so. Mostly I find myself getting pulled into clearing up my opponents misunderstanding of rules such as “Why does each of my guys under a missile template have to test seperately”.
    As Infinity is a fairly high detail game system I expect these sorts of questions to crop up, especially amongst beginners. However if the topic of this article were such an issue then I wonder why my group of players haven’t run into it before now. Perhaps it is more indicative of the scene that you play on? Granted I understand that many of the players posting here may be somewhere in the USA which is a pretty big place…over here in the UK, I guess it’s just never come up?

    • WellSpokenMan

      From what I’ve gathered UK players are pretty chill compared to the US . Gaming clubs are more popular there, while in the US a lot of times it’s just whoever shows up at the store. It also helps a bit to have some libation available while playing. Most US stores don’t sell alcohol (mine does though, yay).

      • doremicom

        My store sells beer as well.

    • I haven’t been playing long, but these two articles have been a bit of a joke at least locally (in my part of the US). Thankfully, many of the people around here are former 40k/WHFB players and have grown tired of micro-measuring and lawyering. So at the very least, it’s not the entire US. 🙂

      • shadow_fox

        I am somewhat infamous in my gaming group as being one of the first to tire of the 40k meta…or lack of meta…or whatever they are calling it nowadays. Though I do think that prompting discussion like this every now and again is healthy in any game system. It helps people to learn and grow as players at the very least. As a point of note, it is Infinity’s 10th birthday today! Happy bday Infinity and CB!

  • Gavin Bateman

    Yep you havent changed my mind one bit. And apart from mildly offending people by saying people who use use intent require training wheels you havent given me a good example of pkaying your style. More power to you honestly if you enjoy playing that way but i loathe it. The game is so complicated that talking it out with your opponent is important. I also think the game is less avout having the intuition of knowing if you are a mm inside 1 aro or 4. Every game i have ever played was.played with intent. And like the mayacast guys im happy with how the community acts on it.

  • CG

    I remember these debates from a year ago when v3 came out. The fact that this has not been clarified and nailed down by CB yet is one of the reasons I stopped playing the game.

    I don’t care which one it is. Just make it clear.

  • James Rodgers

    You know I got your reasoning with the last article but I was not convinced. Your most recent article has convinced me. Play it were it lands isn’t just one way. Its the right way. Course you can always house rule but the deployment issue really settled it for me.

    • Rob Bent

      what deployment issue is that? People deploy with intent all the time. Tell me have you ever deployed and asked hey can guy X see guy Y. I bet you have and adjusted your deployment on this information. This is deploying with intent almost everyone that plays a wargame I bet has done it.

      • James Rodgers

        Its a bit different in infinity because of the ARO system. The rules themselves say check for ARO’s after the move. It’s not designed for the idea that you state who will get an ARO before you even move your model. His deployment argument was that he deliberately set up units to have an overlapping field of fire. But with move with intent you can deny him both ARO’s. Because its not possible to place to model’s in the exact same spot thus their fields of fire will be slightly different. His argument’s here are against playing with intent. He’s not saying you can’t ask a question. He’s saying you can’t state the intent then adjust the model after the move accordingly. You have to ask questions. Take a look at the battlefield move the model then suffer the consequences. Think of it as chess. You don’t say I’m gona move my piece here.. but only if you can’t capture it. Then wait for your opponent to tell you if it can get captured or not.

        • Rob Bent

          Yes the rules state that check AROs after most people will let you know what AROs you will have because when playing on a heavy terrain table it can be hard to see everything and impractical to walk around a table in a row of 12 tables. Also checking AROs is after the move but checking LOS is open information that can be done at any point even in the middle of your move before during or after.
          He is not denied both AROS because of intent at all. He is denied both AROs because the rules state how much of a model you need to see to hit it. If the figure can be placed in a spot where only one can see enough of him to see him then he only gets one ARO. This has nothing to do with intent it is the rules of the game. That’s another reason this article breaks down it not complaining about intent as much as it is complaining about people using the rules to their benefit to take less AROs. This has been done for years to help try and take down link teams.
          The only question after, is their a LOS point where you only get 1 ARO? Is then how much time as a player do you want to spend getting to that point. Asking LOS as stated is open information so the active player can spend as much time as he likes adjusting his figure and asking about LOS before confirming his move. Before even touching his fig he could check the corner for LOS and see if their is a point where only one would have an ARO again nothing to do with intent. Intent is simply used as a process to speed this all up so you can say this is what I want to do both players can check and agree or not on the LOS to the corner as that is open info. Just because you want to get to a point where only one can see them does not mean it is their its just stating lets check to see if it is and if so that is where I am going to move.
          he wants to try and change the rules of the game where LOS is not open information. that is just silly if you ask me as it is something that should be clarified between both players. Also just because you want to hit just one person does not mean that their will be that point at the corner that exits if not its still your choice to move up their and take both AROs or not.

  • Richard Mitchell

    I thought your last article was very positive, it was more about addressing unhealthy habits that hurt the community and game scene as a whole. I mean, if I was thinking about getting into a game seeing two players working to make an awesome game rather than fighting would make or break my interest.

  • Rob Bent

    This is wrong on so many levels it is not even funny more than anything you ignore the main issue that playing with intent deals with. That is LOS and that LOS is open information. So you really don’t want people to play differently you want the rules changed so you can play the game a different way. Playing with intent if fully within both the spirit of the rules and the rules themselves. Playing where it lands the way you want is both outside the rules in spirit and the way they are written as LOS is open information and you would only want it checked at specific points in times.

  • Jay Mort

    I just want my Ariadna already.