Post by moondoggy on Dec 18, 2015 19:28:43 GMT -6
hey all don't know how many of you have seen the BOLS posting in the DIRT but I did and got writing maybe a bit to much as it seems BOLS does not want to post up my giant post but I feel like venting so I thought I would at least post up my venting here for any that want to read. =)
here is the BOLS posting if you have not seen it www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/12/infinity-moving-forward-with-the-result-the-dirt.html
Ok so at first I thought I’d write something short but now this is longer than the article but I still felt like posting for those who want to read it. Games are meant to be more than anything fun. Most people that play infinity find intent far more fun because it is what works with the game the best on many levels. I will get to more of that latter first I thought I would like to go through the article one piece at a time.
This Article is just as wrong and as bad as the first one. There is very good reason people play with intent. It is not a war against the reactive player at all. The reason why people play with intent more than anything else is the Fun Factor. You say you think most TO’s would want to move on I don’t know why you would think this most everyone that I know want people to play with intent myself included.
So we begin
When you start to talk about intent and how it is played you are simply wrong and this is where your whole argument starts to fall apart. “Using words to describe what you want to happen that dictates the outcome” That is not how intent is played at all. The key goes back to your first point talking to your opponent. This is one important part you are missing is when do you talk to your opponent. Playing with intent is meant to clear up any LOS issues before they become a problem because as in the rules this is open information. Nor does power gamming have anything to do with it. People can and will power game either side if they really want to that I would say is a separate topic entirely. It is not about subjugating anyone to your will either. It is something that either could or could not be done and as stated many times that you seem to ignore LOS is open information that can be checked at any point so anyone could do and be that accurate it it’s a matter of how quickly you get to that point.
The War against the reactive player.
There is no war on the reactive player to say you have perfect deployment is a fallacy in itself. You can only deploy as good as you can there is no perfect deployment. To use your example if you take the premise that you deployed perfectly and your intent was for both of the models to be able to shoot at anything coming around the corner and you should get 2 shots at anything coming around the corner then you are playing intent the other way around. You ask how is it someone so perfectly lined up should not be able to get a shot well it is in the rules put out the silhouette and see if it could happen or not. Again This is open information that can be checked at any point before during or after a declared order if possible anyone could do it. Your best point here is the question where do you draw the line? That is exactly why so many people like playing with intent cause it can be hard to find some times and they find it is a much more enjoyable game when you talk about where that line is up front rather than later. And since as stated many times now what you are talking about is LOS this is open info and can be talked about and determined at any point. If both models would have an ARO then the active player can chose to move their or not if there is a spot where only one does he can chose to move there. It’s not a guessing game like you want to make it out to be, range is but LOS is not.
The Assumption of fewer arguments
The assumption of fewer arguments is true. It is not a collective agreement to subjugate the reactive player at all. You give no evidence of this at all either. Playing with intent does not subjugate the reactive player in any way it just opens up a dialogue of what he is trying to do LOS and how both players see the table. You ask if people deploy with intent and I say yes and I bet you have to. Ask yourself have you ever during deployment of Infinity or another game asked your opponent hey can my guy X see spot Y over there from where I am putting him here because I really want him to see that spot? It is the same type of thing. By no means is the reactive player supposed just roll over to anything the active player says Its generally to help each other have a more fun game. If there is a spot someone can be at and only take 1 aro instead of 2 to bad, then you did not have models in the perfect spot.
The Overuse of Game Aids
Now you are wanting to change the actual rules of the game as they are stated. You want to play a game where you can guess LOS better than you’re the other player can. Part of the Rules are LOS is open information and can be check at any time. I don’t know how much 2nd edition infinity you played but LOS can be a huge issue in the game if you let it be. Here it just seems like you are angry you can’t get all the AROs that you thought you would be able to. What if someone does land their mini right where you only get 1 ARO and not 2? Are you going to really sit there and say ok or would you be rechecking to saying you should have 2 AROs as your intent was to have both guys be able to see that one corner?
Also the other point here fine take away the use of game aids how long can someone then spend eyeballing something can they move a building to get the site line they want to check LOS of where they are going to move? Or is someone just supposed to kind of move and guess LOS not take it into account at all when moving? If there may be a chance to take one ARO instead of two just how much time should someone take trying to line it up?
Moving a miniature, a millimeter at a time
The only thing that you have right here is that moving a miniature a millimeter at a time is wrong as well hence why most people play with intent to just avoid it. The whole someone should be able to walk around a table is a nice idea until you are at the back of a small game store with 8 table lined up in 2 rows of 4 where there is no way everyone is going to be walking back and forth around tables to check LOS. Or even some place bigger like a Gen Con or Adepticon where you have a row of 6+ tables and you’re playing in the middle moving back and forth to see the other side just is not happening you do it once if you have to switch sides during deployment and that is it.
“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.” Again LOS is open information so you can actually check it at any point. The other part of this is just curtesy as stated above its simply impractical lots of times to be moving around the table so it’s a polite thing to do to let someone know what ARO’s would be generated from things he may not see. Again this is to try and up the fun factor for both players so it’s not a game of hiding pieces out of LOS of your physical opponent. They would not chew threw one order moving a millimeter at a time as per the rules they can check LOS at any point. So yes they could keep moving until they have the site line they wanted it is their active turn. Your way of chewing up an order for each Millimeter moved would require an actual change in the rules system.
Infinity 101
It’s great that you help out and give demos your statement that intent methodology is not a show of skill or tactics guess what your right it is not. Nor is it meant to be it is meant to keeps things clarified between both players and keep things civil. I have seen far more veterans use their debating the game in various systems to win playing with results than even playing with intent. In fact, playing with intent is meant to pull out the debates or if there is a question to bring them up before 3 other things have happened or the game is on the line. And in no way is playing with intent circumvent the rules as a matter of fact it is encored in the rules and their WIKI page.
Power gaming.
Any system can be used to power game. However intent I would say is by no means training wheels for new players in fact I would say a lot of veterans like myself that would rather have a friendly game where you’re playing with the other player as much as against them and are more than anything just trying to be clear on what each other is trying to do.
To say intent is for a vet who doesn’t know how to simplify things is simply wrong as well I would argue. Because when you play with intent you are simplifying things and making sure things stay clear between each player. Playing with results things can get messy and complicated quickly when two new players see things differently and one may walk away with a bad taste in his mouth. Intent also teaches players how to play with their opponent as much as they are playing against them.
Intent can only be abused to a power gaming nightmare if the other player lets you break rules and roles over letting you do things you would like to do but can’t due to the rules. Results is much more of the power gaming nightmare when it comes to infinity. You can much more abuse results without the consent of the other player with hidden AROs and arguing for your two AROs back even though you may only have one and other such nonsense than when playing with intent up front. Most of the big players I think that enjoy playing with intent if asked I bet would say they could power game results much more if they wanted to. Thing is I don’t believe most people playing with intent even like to power game that is why they play with intent it brings much more fun factor to the game for both players.
The Gotcha Method
The Gotcha method is a very valid argument and it is the most valid argument of them all I would say. Why you ask because it results in the loss of the one thing that is more important than anything else in the game. What is that you ask THE FUN FACTOR. This is a game people play for fun and to have fun. Intent is in no way a Gotcha to a reactive player intent as people have tried to get through to you does one thing more than anything clears up LOS issues before they come up. This is open information that can be asked about at any time. I have seen many a time where someone say I want to move up here and get in LOS of just that one guy and the reactive play checks line of site and may respond that it will not happen you will get 2 AROs. Sometimes the active player still moves forward other times they will do something else. People call play the results the Gotha method cause with all the building and terrain and other things going on in the game half of which you cannot see from your side of the table its far too easy to set a trap due to poor line of site from the physical player not being able to see something. If this is your idea of fun great play that way at home when I am taking a whole day to go game some place this is not my idea of fun and you will just piss me off.
Speed of Gameplay
I have to completely disagree with you here as you make several assumptions. First let’s say I agree to be subjugated to your method and move the model once and figure out what happens method. Let’s use your example from above with two people with possible AROs one further back than the other so that within all the stated rules it would be possible to pop out and shoot only one of them. Now if people are being subjugated to your move and figure out method you really think they are just going to say no worries just take both of your shots even though I could make it so only one person could hit me. Or do you think they are going to take their time to line things up just right so then they can say only one of your guys can see their guy. I am sure you would just accept this then without having to check all the LOS from your second guy again because you are trusting and would say ohh ya ok so I only have one ARO. No now you are into even more of a time sink rechecking AROs and who can see a head size piece and who cannot. The main thing here as well is you are literally sucking the fun out of the game. This is not a fun way for most people to play a game where things can get bumped jostled and moved. If you take the same situation again though this time with intent I move up my guy to the edge and say this is my intent, you then have a choice. We can then spend time pulling out laser pointers and everything getting things just right or what most people playing with intent may say ok that’s cool your guy is fine at that spot. Now seriously what one of these is going to be faster. I still say you have no evidence to show that see what happens is faster it is still in fact slower.
Nest Steps
Your final point try playing with results in fact I have in the past. Playing with results makes for a shitty game of infinity. I have taken out Tags before with monofilament mines because the person forgot that one small marker he could not see was even there. I even asked if he wanted to take it back but he said no I moved their I’ll take it and the mine ate his tag. Losing something like this due to a small marker that was placed over an hour ago that you can’t see is silly I did not have fun blowing up his TAG that way and I am sure he did not have fun having it blown up. Just as in your example above you will have the reverse when you do not play with intent. You will have the ARO coming from the miniature you cannot see but 1mm of his base is in front of a window in a building shooting at what you though were a space with no ARO as that model could not see them. Playing with results in a game like infinity is simply impractical with the huge amount or terrain and LOS issues with a game like infinity.
One the way you would like to play results and the way it would be played by the rules are two different things. The way you would want to play without pulling out laser pointers or anything like that seems more like it would be fit for a non ITS speed infinity tournament where you have a condensed amount of time to play. The rules as stated people can take all the time and devices they want to line something up this is a fact of the game LOS is open information the one major point you never touch on because it brings everything else on playing with results crashing down.
The whole idea that the ARO player is being subjugated is simply wrong. People that play with intent also play with results the thing is though due to the nature of the game it is much politer and makes for a more enjoyable game when people know what is going on and can simply move the game along. I have had people drop troops in on me that wanted to drop in a spot where they thought there was no AROs but there was one. I could have said to bad here is my ARO I have not done this though their intent was to jump into a spot with no AROs that was in fact half an inch away that I can see better than them since it is back in my deployment zone that they can hardly see. So we move the miniature slightly and they jump in. This is what I think you will find with moth players playing with intent. If you want to play with results, there are many other games out there that I know do that you can play.
When Playing with intent you are not bending or breaking any rules more than anything it is a LOS issue from both a model and personal level that brings a higher fun factor to a lot of players. More than anything this is a game that should be fun. Playing with intent does not subjugate the Player in ARO. In your example of the two figures both trying to see the corner of a container per the rules someone either can or cannot see just one of them as he steps around the corner no matter your intent when placing them. It is then is just a matter of how you want to let it work out. Even when playing with results if it could happen someone could do it. It may stink that you thought you had 2 AROs and now you only have one but that is the game. It also sucks when you go finish your turn and realize you just lost more than you killed but that is the game and it will happen to everyone playing I am sure at some point.
I know that this is long but I would say in finally that the major points you missed though everything mainly is that playing with intent more than anything is a LOS issue that is open information and is a way to clear this with your opponent. Secondly I believe a lot of people find this more fun to be open with things and not to try and make it a game of hide the ARO either on by intent or just because you can’t see something. It boils down to being a good sport about the game and realizing in a game with a ton of terrain things can be hidden from view or bumped and jostled just a bit playing with results is neither fun nor practical.
Thanks for reading
The MoonDoggy
here is the BOLS posting if you have not seen it www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/12/infinity-moving-forward-with-the-result-the-dirt.html
Ok so at first I thought I’d write something short but now this is longer than the article but I still felt like posting for those who want to read it. Games are meant to be more than anything fun. Most people that play infinity find intent far more fun because it is what works with the game the best on many levels. I will get to more of that latter first I thought I would like to go through the article one piece at a time.
This Article is just as wrong and as bad as the first one. There is very good reason people play with intent. It is not a war against the reactive player at all. The reason why people play with intent more than anything else is the Fun Factor. You say you think most TO’s would want to move on I don’t know why you would think this most everyone that I know want people to play with intent myself included.
So we begin
When you start to talk about intent and how it is played you are simply wrong and this is where your whole argument starts to fall apart. “Using words to describe what you want to happen that dictates the outcome” That is not how intent is played at all. The key goes back to your first point talking to your opponent. This is one important part you are missing is when do you talk to your opponent. Playing with intent is meant to clear up any LOS issues before they become a problem because as in the rules this is open information. Nor does power gamming have anything to do with it. People can and will power game either side if they really want to that I would say is a separate topic entirely. It is not about subjugating anyone to your will either. It is something that either could or could not be done and as stated many times that you seem to ignore LOS is open information that can be checked at any point so anyone could do and be that accurate it it’s a matter of how quickly you get to that point.
The War against the reactive player.
There is no war on the reactive player to say you have perfect deployment is a fallacy in itself. You can only deploy as good as you can there is no perfect deployment. To use your example if you take the premise that you deployed perfectly and your intent was for both of the models to be able to shoot at anything coming around the corner and you should get 2 shots at anything coming around the corner then you are playing intent the other way around. You ask how is it someone so perfectly lined up should not be able to get a shot well it is in the rules put out the silhouette and see if it could happen or not. Again This is open information that can be checked at any point before during or after a declared order if possible anyone could do it. Your best point here is the question where do you draw the line? That is exactly why so many people like playing with intent cause it can be hard to find some times and they find it is a much more enjoyable game when you talk about where that line is up front rather than later. And since as stated many times now what you are talking about is LOS this is open info and can be talked about and determined at any point. If both models would have an ARO then the active player can chose to move their or not if there is a spot where only one does he can chose to move there. It’s not a guessing game like you want to make it out to be, range is but LOS is not.
The Assumption of fewer arguments
The assumption of fewer arguments is true. It is not a collective agreement to subjugate the reactive player at all. You give no evidence of this at all either. Playing with intent does not subjugate the reactive player in any way it just opens up a dialogue of what he is trying to do LOS and how both players see the table. You ask if people deploy with intent and I say yes and I bet you have to. Ask yourself have you ever during deployment of Infinity or another game asked your opponent hey can my guy X see spot Y over there from where I am putting him here because I really want him to see that spot? It is the same type of thing. By no means is the reactive player supposed just roll over to anything the active player says Its generally to help each other have a more fun game. If there is a spot someone can be at and only take 1 aro instead of 2 to bad, then you did not have models in the perfect spot.
The Overuse of Game Aids
Now you are wanting to change the actual rules of the game as they are stated. You want to play a game where you can guess LOS better than you’re the other player can. Part of the Rules are LOS is open information and can be check at any time. I don’t know how much 2nd edition infinity you played but LOS can be a huge issue in the game if you let it be. Here it just seems like you are angry you can’t get all the AROs that you thought you would be able to. What if someone does land their mini right where you only get 1 ARO and not 2? Are you going to really sit there and say ok or would you be rechecking to saying you should have 2 AROs as your intent was to have both guys be able to see that one corner?
Also the other point here fine take away the use of game aids how long can someone then spend eyeballing something can they move a building to get the site line they want to check LOS of where they are going to move? Or is someone just supposed to kind of move and guess LOS not take it into account at all when moving? If there may be a chance to take one ARO instead of two just how much time should someone take trying to line it up?
Moving a miniature, a millimeter at a time
The only thing that you have right here is that moving a miniature a millimeter at a time is wrong as well hence why most people play with intent to just avoid it. The whole someone should be able to walk around a table is a nice idea until you are at the back of a small game store with 8 table lined up in 2 rows of 4 where there is no way everyone is going to be walking back and forth around tables to check LOS. Or even some place bigger like a Gen Con or Adepticon where you have a row of 6+ tables and you’re playing in the middle moving back and forth to see the other side just is not happening you do it once if you have to switch sides during deployment and that is it.
“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.” Again LOS is open information so you can actually check it at any point. The other part of this is just curtesy as stated above its simply impractical lots of times to be moving around the table so it’s a polite thing to do to let someone know what ARO’s would be generated from things he may not see. Again this is to try and up the fun factor for both players so it’s not a game of hiding pieces out of LOS of your physical opponent. They would not chew threw one order moving a millimeter at a time as per the rules they can check LOS at any point. So yes they could keep moving until they have the site line they wanted it is their active turn. Your way of chewing up an order for each Millimeter moved would require an actual change in the rules system.
Infinity 101
It’s great that you help out and give demos your statement that intent methodology is not a show of skill or tactics guess what your right it is not. Nor is it meant to be it is meant to keeps things clarified between both players and keep things civil. I have seen far more veterans use their debating the game in various systems to win playing with results than even playing with intent. In fact, playing with intent is meant to pull out the debates or if there is a question to bring them up before 3 other things have happened or the game is on the line. And in no way is playing with intent circumvent the rules as a matter of fact it is encored in the rules and their WIKI page.
Power gaming.
Any system can be used to power game. However intent I would say is by no means training wheels for new players in fact I would say a lot of veterans like myself that would rather have a friendly game where you’re playing with the other player as much as against them and are more than anything just trying to be clear on what each other is trying to do.
To say intent is for a vet who doesn’t know how to simplify things is simply wrong as well I would argue. Because when you play with intent you are simplifying things and making sure things stay clear between each player. Playing with results things can get messy and complicated quickly when two new players see things differently and one may walk away with a bad taste in his mouth. Intent also teaches players how to play with their opponent as much as they are playing against them.
Intent can only be abused to a power gaming nightmare if the other player lets you break rules and roles over letting you do things you would like to do but can’t due to the rules. Results is much more of the power gaming nightmare when it comes to infinity. You can much more abuse results without the consent of the other player with hidden AROs and arguing for your two AROs back even though you may only have one and other such nonsense than when playing with intent up front. Most of the big players I think that enjoy playing with intent if asked I bet would say they could power game results much more if they wanted to. Thing is I don’t believe most people playing with intent even like to power game that is why they play with intent it brings much more fun factor to the game for both players.
The Gotcha Method
The Gotcha method is a very valid argument and it is the most valid argument of them all I would say. Why you ask because it results in the loss of the one thing that is more important than anything else in the game. What is that you ask THE FUN FACTOR. This is a game people play for fun and to have fun. Intent is in no way a Gotcha to a reactive player intent as people have tried to get through to you does one thing more than anything clears up LOS issues before they come up. This is open information that can be asked about at any time. I have seen many a time where someone say I want to move up here and get in LOS of just that one guy and the reactive play checks line of site and may respond that it will not happen you will get 2 AROs. Sometimes the active player still moves forward other times they will do something else. People call play the results the Gotha method cause with all the building and terrain and other things going on in the game half of which you cannot see from your side of the table its far too easy to set a trap due to poor line of site from the physical player not being able to see something. If this is your idea of fun great play that way at home when I am taking a whole day to go game some place this is not my idea of fun and you will just piss me off.
Speed of Gameplay
I have to completely disagree with you here as you make several assumptions. First let’s say I agree to be subjugated to your method and move the model once and figure out what happens method. Let’s use your example from above with two people with possible AROs one further back than the other so that within all the stated rules it would be possible to pop out and shoot only one of them. Now if people are being subjugated to your move and figure out method you really think they are just going to say no worries just take both of your shots even though I could make it so only one person could hit me. Or do you think they are going to take their time to line things up just right so then they can say only one of your guys can see their guy. I am sure you would just accept this then without having to check all the LOS from your second guy again because you are trusting and would say ohh ya ok so I only have one ARO. No now you are into even more of a time sink rechecking AROs and who can see a head size piece and who cannot. The main thing here as well is you are literally sucking the fun out of the game. This is not a fun way for most people to play a game where things can get bumped jostled and moved. If you take the same situation again though this time with intent I move up my guy to the edge and say this is my intent, you then have a choice. We can then spend time pulling out laser pointers and everything getting things just right or what most people playing with intent may say ok that’s cool your guy is fine at that spot. Now seriously what one of these is going to be faster. I still say you have no evidence to show that see what happens is faster it is still in fact slower.
Nest Steps
Your final point try playing with results in fact I have in the past. Playing with results makes for a shitty game of infinity. I have taken out Tags before with monofilament mines because the person forgot that one small marker he could not see was even there. I even asked if he wanted to take it back but he said no I moved their I’ll take it and the mine ate his tag. Losing something like this due to a small marker that was placed over an hour ago that you can’t see is silly I did not have fun blowing up his TAG that way and I am sure he did not have fun having it blown up. Just as in your example above you will have the reverse when you do not play with intent. You will have the ARO coming from the miniature you cannot see but 1mm of his base is in front of a window in a building shooting at what you though were a space with no ARO as that model could not see them. Playing with results in a game like infinity is simply impractical with the huge amount or terrain and LOS issues with a game like infinity.
One the way you would like to play results and the way it would be played by the rules are two different things. The way you would want to play without pulling out laser pointers or anything like that seems more like it would be fit for a non ITS speed infinity tournament where you have a condensed amount of time to play. The rules as stated people can take all the time and devices they want to line something up this is a fact of the game LOS is open information the one major point you never touch on because it brings everything else on playing with results crashing down.
The whole idea that the ARO player is being subjugated is simply wrong. People that play with intent also play with results the thing is though due to the nature of the game it is much politer and makes for a more enjoyable game when people know what is going on and can simply move the game along. I have had people drop troops in on me that wanted to drop in a spot where they thought there was no AROs but there was one. I could have said to bad here is my ARO I have not done this though their intent was to jump into a spot with no AROs that was in fact half an inch away that I can see better than them since it is back in my deployment zone that they can hardly see. So we move the miniature slightly and they jump in. This is what I think you will find with moth players playing with intent. If you want to play with results, there are many other games out there that I know do that you can play.
When Playing with intent you are not bending or breaking any rules more than anything it is a LOS issue from both a model and personal level that brings a higher fun factor to a lot of players. More than anything this is a game that should be fun. Playing with intent does not subjugate the Player in ARO. In your example of the two figures both trying to see the corner of a container per the rules someone either can or cannot see just one of them as he steps around the corner no matter your intent when placing them. It is then is just a matter of how you want to let it work out. Even when playing with results if it could happen someone could do it. It may stink that you thought you had 2 AROs and now you only have one but that is the game. It also sucks when you go finish your turn and realize you just lost more than you killed but that is the game and it will happen to everyone playing I am sure at some point.
I know that this is long but I would say in finally that the major points you missed though everything mainly is that playing with intent more than anything is a LOS issue that is open information and is a way to clear this with your opponent. Secondly I believe a lot of people find this more fun to be open with things and not to try and make it a game of hide the ARO either on by intent or just because you can’t see something. It boils down to being a good sport about the game and realizing in a game with a ton of terrain things can be hidden from view or bumped and jostled just a bit playing with results is neither fun nor practical.
Thanks for reading
The MoonDoggy
