Play The Results

Hobby, New Players

There is a tradition―an illegal tradition―which has crept into Infinity from the best of intentions:  and that is intention.  Infinity players across the world make provision for themselves to break the rules of the game because of a gentleman’s agreement to play their intent, rather than play the results.  Yet the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the non-rule that is intent, no matter how well loved it is, actually leads to slower games, ungentlemanly play, and is at its basal level a violation of Infinity’s rules.

This is an unpopular observation, but I don’t care, and neither should you.  Unpopular ≠ untrue.  Let’s kill this sacred cow and eat it.

Before going any further, let’s go straight to the rules.  The rules as written in both the N3 Rulebook and the official Infinity wiki say:

Each time the Active Player decides to use an Order (of whatever type) to activate a trooper, follow these steps:

  1. Activation: The Active Player declares which trooper will activate.
  2. Order expenditure: The Active Player removes from the table, or otherwise marks as spent, the Order Marker he uses to activate the trooper.
  3. Declaration of the First Skill: The Active Player declares the first Short Skill of the Order, or the Entire Order he wants to use. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and places the trooper at the final point of its movement.
  4. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks which of her troopers can react against the activated trooper, and declares AROs for each of them. If a trooper can declare an ARO but fails to do so, the chance is lost. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and specifies where the trooper would be at the end of its movement.
  5. Declaration of the Second Skill: The Active Player declares the second Short Skill of the Order, if applicable. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and places the trooper at the final point of its movement.
  6. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player can check whether new AROs are available, and declare those. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and specifies where the trooper would be at the end of its movement.
  7. Resolution: Players take measurements, determine MODs, and make Rolls.
  8. Effects: Players apply all effects of successful Orders or AROs, and make ARM/BTS Rolls.
  9. Conclusion: If necessary, players make Guts Rolls and apply their effects.

Check the page for yourself.  Hit Ctrl F and search Intent.  No results?  No worries, you all know that you can slice the pie with intent, no worries.  It must be clarified elsewhere.

Well―it’s not in Ballistic Skill Attack Declaration.  It’s not in Ballistic Skill Attack Resolution.  It’s not in Visibility Conditions.  It’s not in ARO rules.  It’s not in Line of Fire rules.  What about “intent” in the entire database?  Nope, the only entry for “intent” is a fluffy definition of E/M.  Well, what about “intention”?

Yes indeed!  “Intention” is mentioned solely, once, in the move rules.  It’s exactly where you would hope to find it, if you play intent.  But it doesn’t exactly say what you might think:

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.

Intention matters in your movement because of measurement rules.  Intention matters here because you might intend to move your model further than it can actually go.  It matters for the same reason that declaring your intention to use a Flamethrower BS Attack ARO instead of a Pistol BS Attack ARO matters, because the Flamethrower template might whiff air and miss, after you measure with the actual template.

Intention, as detailed in the move skill, does not actually mean that you can just say, “I move such that X cannot see me.”  It means that you can say where you move.  You declare the intention of the model’s final location, but your intention doesn’t resolve who can and can’t see your model.  You don’t get to decide that.  The models we bought, the scenery we put down, and the table we hunch over decide for us where our models are and whom they can see.

The illegality of intent has spread all over the community.  Look at the otherwise excellent battle reports by Ash:

You can clearly see at 6:30 that, regardless of Ash’s wisht to slice the pie” and see only the Aron’s Agema Marksman, the Thorakitai may draw Line of Fire past the trees and into the parachutist.

Getting your pie slice just because you want it, is as absurd as switching your Grunt’s -12 Rifle ARO to a Heavy Flamethrower ARO, just because you wanted it.  It takes a while of playing the rules get that gut reaction of absurdity at what Ash did to Aron, but it’s nonetheless absurd.

What should have happened is what actually happened.  Ash moved the parachutist model moved out as a first skill, Aron would check for AROs and see that the Agema and Thorakitai could draw Line of Fire, and Ash’s could declare his parachutist’s second skill. Intent was irrelevant and should not have affected the table actual.  Line of Fire is decided by the table, not the mind.

If I were Aron, after Ash had said, “We’re going to move just so I can slice the pie and see the Agema right here,” I would have responded, “Okay, let’s see if you did.”

“Well, that’s just how we play.”

That’s fine, but that’s not Infinity.  If you just like to play intent in friendly games, there’s nothing wrong as long as both players agree to play that way.  But that kind of intent has no business in tournament or otherwise “official” play.

Intent play and the wishy-washy arguments and backtracking it provides are so silly, I made a whole cartoon satirizing it.  Of course, as a younger and greedier player, I tried to squeeze my way into every order I executed.  But such duplicitous play is not allowed.  Again, the sequence is Activation > Order Expenditure > First Skill > Any ARO > Second Skill > Any ARO > Resolution > Effects > Conclusion.  There is no > Intent >.

“Well, I prefer intent.”

Well, I am sorry.  Infinity is a permissive rule set.  That is to say, a thing is illegal unless the rules say the thing is legal.  This is why you cannot voluntarily fail ARM rolls, or Sensor in ARO.  A permissive ruleset is opposed to a restrictive rule set.  Restrictive rulesets, like many roleplaying games, are designed around the assumption that “everything is legal unless the rules say that it is illegal”.

In D&D, you can try what you intend, and invent things with your Dungeonmaster.  You can say in D&D, “I backflip out the window and shoot my hand crossbow in his eye, and I try to grab the windowsill there as I fall.”  But Infinity is not Dungeons & Dragons.  There is no provision for intent to fudge with play.  You can’t use your PH attribute to do a Dodge-CC Attack cartwheel kick, even though your Shaolin model looks really cool and a Dodge-CC Attack cartwheel kick would be awesome.  By inserting my magic word > Intent > where I want, I would make myself the Dungeonmaster of my turn, and violate the physical representation (models, scenery) for which you and I payed to play.

Watch this Holoprojector interaction from Bostria’s recent Infinity promotion.  Watch and listen carefully to how Bostria resolves the order on the Kotail:

Bostria says, “I am not going to get into the intention or not intention debate.  If you see that there is no Line of Sight…”

Killian responds, “No, I can’t see him at all.”

“And if I put a Silhouette 2 marker?”

Killian again, “No, I can’t see.”

Bostria:  “Then, it’s true.”

Unpopular ≠ untrue.  And this is not new news, which is why I am running out of patience with this argument.  To those who were genuinely confused, it’s all gravy.  I’ll defer even in a tournament to intent to be civil, but I won’t pretend it’s Infinity’s rule.  You’re not actually allowed to slide your model across the table, and say, “I look at your Fusilier but not your Sierra.”  The model and table and scenery and silhouette will tell you whether my Fusilier can see you and whether my Sierra can see you, thank you very much.

Veteran players may persist.  Some may argue that playing by intent is the best way to introduce new players.  I would disagree:  if you teach a new player the wrong way to play to make it easier for them, you will have to unteach them later, and make it harder.  And people are smart, they don’t need to be coddled.

Even so―even if it is true, that intent is a superior way to teach new players―the argument holds an empty sack, as we who are arguing this are not new players, nor are we playing our “better” Infinity, but Corvus Belli’s Infinity.

Put your fantasies in a wishlist thread or a blog (like me 😀 ).  If you want to create a shadow ruleset or a homebrew rule, create a shadow ruleset or a homebrew rule.  But tell your fellow players that you are playing your shadow ruleset or your homebrew rule; because you are not playing Infinity when you play intent.

So play the result.  You will find that is not so scary, no more scary than Chess.  Your rounds will become faster, because you cannot backtrack your decisions.  Your decisions will become more decisive, because your mistakes and your bad habits will be punished.  Your eyes will become locked on the board, not wandering over your phone.  Instead of playing a reverse terraced game of Slice the Pie, lining up ARO troops like pool balls, you can just play Infinity.  And ultimately you will have a more gentlemanly game, because the terms of the game you are playing are no longer subject to anyone’s subjective whims.

And there you have it.  Well!  In my better version of Infinity, AD works in ARO, Automedikits and Regeneration give a free go at the end of each player turn, Morats get the Tazurat, Yu Jing gets the Chain Huo, PanO gets the Nanorifle, Tohaa gets the Kekeul, and Crits are just DAM+6, not autowounds.  In your better version of Infinity, we draw of fire by intent.  But our “better versions” of Infinity are imaginations.  The one version available to play is Corvus Belli’s Infinity.

Love your vids, Vaul 🙂

Edit 04/29/16
As there has been much further discussion on various venues about this topic, I think it is necessary to address the root that the intent argument stems from:

Say we have troopers A, B, and C.  A is the active turn player’s trooper.  He wants A to draw Line of Fire to B, but not C, and to shoot B.  He looks at the table.  He’s not sure where he should move his trooper to do that.  But it’s conceivable that he could draw Line of Fire to B, but not C.

So the active player gets out his silhouette, and laser, and puts the silhouette forward.

“Nope,” says reactive player, “both B and C could see A if he moved there.”

So the active player withdraws A’s would-be silhouette back a bit.

“Nope,” says reactive player again, “both B and C could still see A.”

This continues on for some minutes until A gets his perfect sliver of Line of Fire, shoots B, and goes on his merry way.

However the reactive player didn’t really like that exchange, and didn’t like the minutes spent craning over the table and lasering each other’s eyes, so he says, “Hey, next time, just say you only want to see B but not C, and I’ll roll with it, I don’t want to go through with that again.”  I think that’s fine and fair, and it’s up to our reactive player to offer that.

The problem I have is that our hypothetical active player seems to be every player―we aren’t being offered goodwill, we are demanding such goodwill from our opponents.  It is the difference between the girlfriend who loves to be brought flowers versus the girlfriend who demands to be bought flowers.  The first is a pleasure, the latter a chore.

So:  Do you think it is acceptable to spend several minutes to try to find your perfect Line of Fire?

If you think yes, then I understand why you’d advocate intent.

But I think no.

I think it is unacceptable to burn time during our evening game to do that.  So there is no need for intent.  Yes, I could do it.  But why?  Do I need that badly to beat you?

So I suppose a corollary is necessary:  Play the results, and play like an adult.


Edit 04/11/17
some year-later edits


41 thoughts on “Play The Results

  1. The point I disagree with most: ‘people are smart, nor do they need to be coddled’. They really aren’t, nor are any of them trustworthy.

    Seriousness aside, this issue reminds me of the old joke “bug or feature”. Intent’s not part of the ruleset, but lots of people use it for convenience regardless. It’s basically how it got added to the movement rule and the same results are easily achievable just by asking before Order Activation in any event.

    Shrug, the matter seems subjective either way. Everyone’s understanding and application of the (imperfect) ruleset is flawed to some extent. Mistakes are always made and not all of them caught (proven by the comments section of every youtube batrep). At best, even the most studious player still would probably only be able to claim that they play just ‘what they think Infinity is supposed to be’.

    When it comes down to it, I support intent at NOVA. Besides, “Infinity” is a ****ing stupid name for this game anyways.


  2. Should amended that previous comment with this: Regardless of either side of the argument, love your passion and courage to post such an opinion on a somewhat hot-button topic like this. I feel I end up usually being self-conscious to do so myself.


    1. Welp… someone’s gotta say it. What has pushed me over the edge was the various WarCors who go about the rules section of the forum and declare “intention” movement as the actual rule of the game. As I say, I don’t mind how folks play at home, and of course I go gaga for wishlisting. But I don’t advocate an incorrect way to play the game; and if I do, I’m willing to be corrected.

      Waiting for your March release thoughts 😉


      1. I gotcha. 😉
        This article inspired me to write one too, not about the legitimacy of intent but about just how stupidly difficult it is to play a “by the book” rules-flawless game of Infinity.

        As for march release thoughts… you just made me realize I hadn’t even made an attempt to look out for them. Wow, counting it up now, I have watched and written about 25 anime reviews since the 3rd week of March alone, when I normally would’ve started to keep an eye out for that release.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I imagine, in a year, this article will look to me like a pendulum swung too far the other way. Yet as it is, I have seen a great upswell in advocacy for intention, advocacy that has morphed into a belief that intention is actually the rules. Yet I also agree―given Vault and Jump and Super-Jump and Engage and Climbing and Climbing Plus rules, and human parallax issues with measuring tape―you simply can’t take everything in Infinity to the absolute letter. However in a permissive rule set, when there *is* a rule, I would say that it’s best to err to that rule first, before swilling into the territory of homebrew and makeshiftery.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. I was referring just to the difficulty of learning the rules and applying all of them to a game without any confusion or mistakes. For most of the games I’ve played at least, there’s always been at least one mistake or time-out to reference the wiki. And this is before all those often overlooked or permissed mistakes like minor inching and lenient LoF.


  3. Hi, I’ve only played friendly games up to now, and we did not pay much attention to this intent/result way of playing. We were somewhere in a gray area in the middle. I must say you convinced me, the order expenditure are very clear in that regard. Playing the result for movement is also more consistent with shooting: choose the weapon and then measure. There is still something that puzzles me though: it is the insert named “Gaming Etiquette” in the rules (in the “Move” order explanation). What does this mean with playing the result? Is it only for the starting position? It would really help me to have a clear explanation for this.


    1. Hi Stephen,

      Yes, we just had a big long discussion on the forum about this topic. I am not sure the WordPress comments allow formatting, so I will have to write a larger plain text response, apologies. The Gaming Etiquette section says this:

      “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.”

      However, as we have noted, the expenditure sequence also says this:

      “Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks which of her troopers can react against the activated trooper, and declares AROs for each of them. If a trooper can declare an ARO but fails to do so, the chance is lost. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and specifies where the trooper would be at the end of its movement.”

      It’s clear that ARO checking is to be done at the declaration of the order―not just beforehand. If you fail to take an ARO, then it’s lost. People seem to forget this passage who hyperfocus on the etiquette passage.

      The common problem seems to be such players who dilly-dally all evening, checking every possible lane of fire with their eyeballs and lasers, so the player can be “optimal”. Unfortunately, nothing in the wording of the rules prohibits this―you must share information and answer honestly regarding Line of Fire at the asking. Nothing says that Annoying Nick couldn’t all evening―or all tournament―ask and ask and ask until he finally makes the “optimal” decision.

      So what do we do? Some have decided playing by “intent” is a good way to skirt the argument and save time―say the magic word, and skip the 40+ minutes of shining lasers everywhere. A small minority of others would suggest something like turn timers, to prevent such time consumption. However, neither solution is in the rules, so they’re moot.

      My answer to fictional Annoying Nick is the same answer I would give to someone who played Chess with 40+ minute turns, or who played Civilization with nonstop autosave loads, or who played Infinity with William Wallace + 40 Highlander Galwegians: grow up. Yes, you can do it. But nobody’s impressed. You’re playing the game with other people. So please be considerate.

      We had 1 guy in our group who regularly took forever on his turns. But, we didn’t invent a new rule to force on the community. He is a totally nice dude, and we just talked with him like adults. So―at the demand of no one―he decided to set a 30-minute alarm on his phone to force himself to play quickly, and he did that until he didn’t need it any more. If your players are not so agreeable, I would stick them on this point:

      “before declaring it”

      Once declared, an order is spent. Once the player says, “My Sierra moves here”, it’s done. You get your ARO, and he can’t backtrack or say no. If he’s stubborn about it, I recommend playing with a different player or a different group. I think a lot of us, at some point or another, are trying to prove something in the games we play. Most of us grow out of that, and just play to play. But some people get stuck there.

      Playing the results is definitely a double-edged sword. You will generally get more AROs, but your opponent will also get more AROs. What you’ll find is, as I say, that you start becoming more observant and savvy and decisive and tactical and calculating as you maneuver about the table. Your enemy will be deadly and dangerous, but you will no longer have to lose troop after troop to the magic word “intent”, and let your ARO defenders do their business, as intended. 😉

      Regarding the execution of movement, a good way to think of it may be like Real-Time Strategy videogame movement: You select a unit, and tell it where to go. The measuring you do afterward is you acting as its AI, pathfinding the unit to the location.

      Playing the result is not just relevant to the starting location and terminal location: Your trooper’s Silhouette applies along the breadth of its movement value. This passage, in the wiki’s general movement rules, is relevant:

      “When declaring any form of Movement, you must specify the exact route the trooper will follow, so that the opponent can declare the appropriate AROs.”

      So, if you were to move your trooper behind a row of boxes of varying height, your opponent could declare an ARO at any point along that movement where he could gain Line of Fire. The Silhouette is not restricted merely to the starting location or final location. Also worthy of note:

      “Troopers have a LoF arc of 360˚ while they are moving.”

      In this way, you are not required to specify along your movement every which way your trooper sees. You don’t have micromanage spinning around your trooper or silhouette to clarify your line of sight. However, at the final placement, of course, the trooper’s facing is locked in, until you spend a new order or ARO to change it.


      1. Thanks for the very detailed answer. Things are much clearer for me now, and I see much better where the issues with some players can be. Fortunately I do not know such players yet, so I will not have any trouble playing the results. By the way, you mentioned it, I also feel that playing the results is fairer for the reactive player.


  4. All of those trees are Zero Visibility Zones (Dense Woods). Hence the Thorakites (without any MSV) has no way of seeing through them to the Airborne Ranger.

    Just FYI. 🙂

    Interesting write up! I’d say I don’t fall on the side of ‘Intent’ or ‘Play it how it lands’. I fall on the side of ‘Communication is good’.

    I’m a filthy moderate like that.


    1. Good afternoon, Ash! Pleasure to see you here.

      Rats. I did forget you play Zero Vis on the trees. I do immensely like that, as it grants inherent value to bringing MSV, instead of leaving MSV an opponent-dependent equipment. The terrain rules are often a missed opportunity in that regard.

      Seeing what I can from the video―it did appear a member of the Thorakitai fireteam could see your Parachutist regardless. I don’t think anyone has a problem with communication in games: if I were Aron, when you said “We’re going to move just so I can slice the pie and see the Agema right here,” I would have responded, “Okay, let’s see if you did,” and stuck my face down there to see who else could see you. The only occasion where the spoken word matters over actual representation, I would say, are cases like Jump skills, Ladders, or Climbing Plus, where the model cannot be situated without constant human intervention.

      Thanks again for dropping by and keep up the great work―you’re the best spokesman for Infinity on the market.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I was just reminded of your rant here while thinking of another hot-button house rule that came up in conversation yesterday, while talking to some people in my group that had just attended a tournament over in a neighboring state’s meta. Debated whether or not I should post this rant of my own to my blog, but it is potentially very sensitive to a various certain others that I’m fairly sure periodically check my blog and whom I will still have to be pleasant with for the NOVA. (maybe I’ll repost it after that’s over :P)

    So, the other meta, and sometimes I feel much of the overall US meta, institutes “into, out of, but not through” building LoF house rule as if it were indeed an ingrained part of the actual ruleset. Whereas I only ever dip to it when the terrain being used really necessitates it, but since I mostly use my own terrain, that’s rarely ever an issue.

    As a terrain builder, this is where the use of the house rule peeves me.

    It’s my impression that many “notable” MDF terrain companies design their products with the use of the house rule in mind, as if it were the standard rather than an exception. To use US examples, Shark Mounted Lasers and Underground Lasers terrain warrants this, and even Warsenal staff mentioned using the house rule with their Comanche terrain (their table stood out at NOVA as being very open LoF because I didn’t use the house rule for my event since NOVA’s DIY terrain had been designed to be usable without it).

    Black Maria Designs is a new start-up from our neighboring meta that’s also making MDF terrain designed with that house rule in mind. Where that becomes a sensitive issue for me is that he plans to donate terrain to NOVA. Because he’ll be an official sponsor at that point, NOVA will require me to place his terrain front and center, which subsequently requires me to add the house rule to NOVA as well to preserve the integrity of the tables.

    Obviously, I am not the happiest about. I almost wish I had the capital laying around to start up my own company, design some terrain, and donate it to NOVA as well just to counter this development. But, that’s probably a sign I’m strangling NOVA with my doting. And, I’ll concede that my group is looking to be in the very small minority now, so it is likely best just to add the house rule and accommodate the majority anyways.

    (Sigh, that’s part of the problem with being a TO tied to an event that’s required to be as “successful” as possible. When paying for various expenses, including flying Bostria to the event, the minimum requirement for an event’s “success” gets raised well above a relaxing afternoon where at least a few friends showing up and play a few games.)

    Still, that does grind my gears as a terrain builder because I think it’s a bit of a cheap cop out by those professionals to design their MDF terrain as such rather than aim to come up with interesting and functional products that do fall within the actual terrain rules as is.

    This next part I’ll preface by claiming it’s entirely just speculation, hearsay, and opinion on my part alone.

    My strong feelings on this subject do happen to be fueled by a previous discussion on it with Gutier, who turned out to also be quite adamant in his disdain for how popular the house rule has become, even among his playtesters. Something to the effect of, ‘if I wanted players to use it, I would’ve included it in the rules’, a quote you might enjoy for the legitimacy of Intent.

    Unfortunately, he knows as well there’s a difference between the Infinity that was his ideal and the monster it actually becomes once in the hands of those players ‘who know better’. I do wonder if, to some extent, he feels that same sense of helplessness over the terrain made by CB’s partners as I do with NOVA. Though in his case, both his livelihood and original creation are involved, whereas I’m simply a volunteer.

    You know, he once commented that Infinity is kinda more of a job to him now than a passion, and also that CB didn’t seem to have the same sense of family as NOVA did, despite their staff being made up of actual relatives. I’m sure CB would go through great lengths to please him, but my impression is that he wasn’t 100% committed to seeing the game through thick and thin like he once might have been.

    I suppose another comment of his, “never say never”, might also be applicable here. And, it’s a little unfortunate that he won’t be at NOVA this year and I won’t be able to to follow-up on how thing’s are going for him. Hm, thinking on that… no, I’m sure he at least wants to go as far as N3CP, though the future did seem very blurry beyond that.

    Thanks for letting me unload. 😛
    (can feel free to delete this, I just needed that weight lifted off my chest)


    1. Dude, I would never delete this. I do not “moderate” comments. I don’t think that’s ethical. The only kind of comment I suppose I would delete is spam, but spambots never make it through the WordPress filter.

      I am not surprised to hear Gutier is displeased with houserules and the complaints in favor of such houserules. To be honest, I would be shy to look through my old forum comments, as I used to get pretty heated about rules I did not like. But I think it is a sign of immaturity to get worked up over entertainment like Infinity and Xbox games and Marvel movies. Still, think it is worth it to pipe up about issues―medic rules and Nimbus Grenades and K1 Snipers could be more useful―and community pressure has changed some elements for the better―but in the end, I have to say, I like what CB does, and I would rather try to figure out their game than force the game to change for me.

      If it wasn’t clear in the article, I used to play “intent”. I had to unlearn that as some of my group played by the book. I learned to play by the book, and actually learned that it was a good way to play. Though the community can and does occasionally produce a stellar idea, CB produces their own good ideas, and it’s their rules in the end, anyway. I hate that community rules are overtaking Infinity rules for convenience.

      I wish I had pictures of some old beautiful terrain from my group―we had a guy who had a huge collection of MAS and Warsenal terrain that he went to great pains to dress the inside of. There were cubicles, desks, monitors, and it was all painted and gorgeous. He made it to stop that issue, of infinite window Line of Fire. But he also dolled up the interiors to tempt players to enter the buildings, as, in his words, “If it’s pretty, they’ll want to handle it.” He ultimately sold his set, for $1,000, to someone on Craigslist. All we have left at the store is a crate of blank Shark Mounted Lasers terrain.


      1. Furniture scatter terrain is surprisingly uncommon, though maybe also because what little there is tends to be somewhat expensive just for desks, sofas, beds, and the like, which is weird considering how cheap some small MDF crate kits can be and all that’d be required is the same amount of MDF using a slightly different design.


  6. You keep making the same mistake in all your arguments – over and over and over again. But first off. You set off insulting all those who disagree with you, categorically state that they’re wrong and then only present the case from your point of view. Refusing to consider the counter arguments altogether and justifying that with insults and absolute (and entirely unproven) statements is not good critical thinking. It’s a good way to have your opinion comprehensively dismissed.

    You deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent what intent is – in particular, you define it without actually saying so anywhere in your article as permitting take backs and cheating. There is virtually nobody who says that’s how it’s played, and every time the argument comes up, you define intent as something nobody else defines it as, and constantly attack from that angle.

    Your opinion is unpopular for a reason, which is that time and again you’ve failed to convince anyone because you haven’t actually addressed their points, you argue straight past what they’re saying and declare yourself the victor.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Do you think it is acceptable to spend 5 minutes in the game trying to squeeze the perfect Line of Fire for your trooper?

      If you think yes, then I understand why you play intent.

      But I think no.

      In my experience, the intent players are the same people who do take-backsies. Your meta may be different of course, but that has been my experience. I win far more than I lose, but I do not place winning so high a goal that I am willing to commit either indecency. You are welcome to play amidst your friends however you like, but you cannot advocate intent as the rule, because it is demonstrably not. As I say―I used to play intent. I was corrected. I think the correct way to play is better. The correct way to play is also more conducive to sportsmanship.

      You should feel a bit insulted for playing intent. It is playing Infinity with bumpers.
      It’s better to just play the game. Your opponent deserves their AROs as much as you deserve your fistfull of d20 to punish each other with.


  7. You did the same thing you did before – present an argument that I never made and attack that. And then insult me based on what you just said I said.

    Not worth having a discussion like this. Rest assured that with yoru approach, your position will remain as unpopular as it is now.


  8. You are so wrong it is spectacular. Article full of “Play it the way I like it played, dammit!”

    Oh, and you’re wrong.


  9. I really hate this word “intent”.

    The real question is very simple.

    Is a trooper’s line of sight a valid reference when declaring the path or destination of a movement action?

    For instance: If I activated a model and said “I’m declaring a move order and my intended final destination is at this doorway”, measured it out, found I had an extra 2 inches and moved my model passed the doorway and into the room, that would be against the rules right?


    1. Yeah. I may have to add your example. When I first wrote this article, I conflated take-backsies with “intent” play—they are technically different behaviors—but they stem from the same assumption. Me beating you is more important to me than legal or friendly play.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. It also says that if you don’t declare a possible ARO, you lose it. Which means that possible AROs are determined outside of your awareness. Which means the table. So you are wrong.

      Also, Corvus Belli does not play “intent” in the way that the majority of the community does, and that’s evidence enough for me that the community is in error.


      1. From the rulebook under 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”.

        I ask, you check. If you miss one, then tough. A rule that states an ARO is lost if it is missed has nothing to do with me being able to ask whether an ARO will be triggered. It is also obligatory to declare when delaying an ARO, so there should never be ‘surprise’ AROs except from camo markers in a hidden state. The rules that CB wrote in their rulebook are evidence enough for me that you are in error.


      2. I don’t see how I’m wrong here. If you can lose an ARO, that means that it is possible that you weren’t aware of a possible ARO, which means that players de facto cannot be omniscient of LoF, and should play it out sequentially.


      3. Dredging up an old argument here but it’s the first time I’ve read this article and I have a couple of points I don’t see raised so forgive me:
        A) What is your source on “Corvus Belli does not play intent” because if it’s from the above Bostria bat-rep I got a totally different read on the than you. The impression I got was that Carlos was assuming intent but was willing to concede the point rather than argue it. Carlos states “Oh that was not my intent, we’re playing intentional here” then the other guy says “You’ll have to spend another order” clearly signalling that he does not feel intent is valid. Carlos thinking “ok, I’m not going to get too hung up on this for the sake of a demo/marketing game so whatever” and when he says “then it’s true” he actually sounds a little frustrated. If it’s based on something else then fair enough but I’d maybe sight that source too.

        B) For me it’s not about whether its acceptabl to spend 5 minutes placing the mini it’s actually about what I find to be the interesting compelling element of the game play experience. The enjoyment and the skill of the game as I see it is indentifying possibilties assesing them and and choosing what I think is the best one and seeing how it unfolds, not in being able to sucsessfully manipulate objects in 3d space.

        In addition I’m happy to play without intention for myself but would prefer to grant the benefit of the doubt to my opponent as I want to win loose or draw on the relative merits of our abilities to identify the the options asses them and choose the best ones not on our ability to place models, and I’d rather beat my opponent because I made better choices and had a better stratagem not because they ham-fistedly placed their minis and lost a key piece to an ARO they wouldn’t have taken but for their failure to successfully manipulate objects in 3d space.

        So if my opponent wants to move X so it can see A and not B and I agree that it is physically possible to do so then I’m more than happy to either work with them to represent that outcome in the 3d space or to accept that we both understand the intent and we needn’t bother with the fiddly bit of moving miniatures back and forth till the desired outcome is achieved.


  10. As far as I can see from the sections you quoted, the RAW for Infinity is to spend five minutes with lasers to double check every order. No-one wants to play all of every game like that, though.

    So Intent is used to allow you to play well without taking forever.

    To match your combative tone (no offence intended, I just can’t think of a better way to say it):
    What your article is really saying is “I don’t like how this game changes if both people are playing carefully, so can everyone please just stop using the rule that lets you check LOF before moving?”.

    While your “intentionally careless” version of Infinity might be more enjoyable (I haven’t formed an opinion yet), as far as the rules go you’re allowed to check LOF to a location before committing to the order.

    Similarly, the only ways to declare no ARO are 1: voluntarily (there are a handful of cases where this could be a good idea, such as keeping camo) and 2: by missing the chance accidentally, though if you see your opponent miss it it’s considered poor sportsmanship not to remind him.

    I even think the game might benefit from more Intent, since all too often I find myself saying things like “move here, staying out of line of sight of everything” and “assuming nothing can see it I’ll activate this” when it’s obvious that I’m NOT actually intending to (for instance) get my hacker shot by activating in line of sight of a sniper I assumed was prone.


    1. Well, first of all, remember that playing is a game, not a fight. If beating your opponent is more important than playing fairly―which, in a tournament, fair enough, there’s justification to, but then I don’t even play intent in tournaments―then it makes sense to spend 5 minutes checking everything with lasers. If you think that’s how it should be, that’s on you.

      The point has been made to me by another RAW defender, that the point in the Open and Private Information line about Line of Fire is not about drawing all possible AROs on the table, but simply to say that you cannot “play dumb”, as it were, about which models can see where. Simply, your troops Silhouette and 180° arc are open information. No “gotcha”.

      In all fairness, I’m not convinced that that’s, strictly speaking, what the Line of Fire definition means. It is true that the LoF clause does not say you are permitted (or required) to discuss possible AROs. But LoF does means both your 180° arc and the sight between two entities. However, I’m certainly no longer convinced that intent is the better way to play. Mostly because it’s playing Infinity with safety bumpers. It teaches you bad habits. As an anecdotal example, I stopped playing intent more than a year ago, and it’s made me a sharp player. I’ve had like a 10/1 win/loss ratio for the past 12+ months. (And I don’t just play Tohaa 🙂 )

      For example, it’s just as possible that the community makes a “courtesy” houserule, a “friendly shortcut”, that demands all players just declare who their Lieutenants may be, because, well hey, I could just rebuild your army in Army 5 here―nothing says I can’t―but why waste 5 minutes doing that when you can just tell me who your Lieutenants are?

      I can see how it looks “intentionally careless”. It certainly might feel like carelessness during the first few games. But it’s really not. It’s carefulness joined with decisiveness and, if such a word makes sense in the context of a game, responsibility. Because look, if I’ve set up 3 dudes who all can clearly see a corner, I expect them to see that corner. I don’t expect there’s a 0.1mm difference that you can eke out to see only 1 dude at a time. Similarly, if you have done the same to me, I don’t want to do you the discourtesy of shortcutting the rules because I don’t want to bother being responsible for the fact that I moved my dude in LoF of 3 of yours.

      I encourage you to give RAW a try for at least a month before you dismiss it and make a houserule the rule.

      In any case, as I said to Redheadhobbies up there, intent is evidently not how CB plays, so that’s evidence enough to me that the community is in error.


      1. I can definitely see the attraction of your way, I’m only arguing that RAW lets you check LOF before moving: so there won’t be accidental AROs anyway if you spend thirty seconds finding the right spot. Alternatively you can spend three seconds saying “I slice onto the first one” and have exactly the same effect.

        I appreciate you remaining civil after my inflammatory last post, by the way.


      2. All good, we’ve had lots of friendly chat on the forum, I don’t see the point of being a dick over this. The original reason I was so combative with this post was because (at the time) all but 1 WarCor were saying intent was the actual rule, at the same time the video above with Carlos came out.
        As (I think) I said in the article, I used to play intent, too, so I get the appeal. But RAW really is better. Don’t knock it ’til you try it. 😉


  11. “Intent is totally illegal and it doesn’t matter if you like it or not.

    PS It is actually totally legal but I don’t like it so you shouldn’t do it”


  12. If I am allowed to check line of fire before I finalize a move then all intent will do is speed up the game. it is not part of the rules but it looks like spending 5 minutes and calling over a judge to slice the pie correctly IS part of the rules and it will have the exact same effect as playing with intent.

    The alternative is that you can not check line of fire tell after you move eating any ARO’s as the dice may fall. ie only after you moved can lasers be used.
    I think this last one is a house rule but it might be how the game is intended.


    1. Not just lasers: you’d have to somehow prevent the use of eyes. Or possibly just prevent crouching down for a model’s eye view, if the player hasn’t learnt to imagine straight lines of fire yet, thereby penalising new players more.

      The only alternatives I can see to intent are:
      • Taking a two minutes to confirm every line of sight for every move and deployment (what the rules seem to say, for competitive play at least).
      • Failing to take full advantage of the rules and making mistakes which could have been legally avoided (what this article advocates).
      • Or a house rule that you’re not allowed to declare a model’s precise destination: if your hand slips and the model moves too much then it gets shot. And maybe the same for deployment, if you bump the table and knock a model into the open, it will get shot.
      Obviously this last one is ridiculous, I’m just trying to think of options.


    2. The thing that the intent solution fails to solve is that the actual position must be discovered anyway, since models continue to move after the order stops.

      All other references in the game concerning LoF concern the actual models and their Silhouettes, not the intended placement thereof.

      So even if it is granted that relative intention in LoF is the rule in Infinity (which it is not), or that that is the way that Corvus Belli plays it (which it is not), one still, at the end of the order, must put the eyes and lasers down anyway, to find the desired place for the attacking model.

      Elsewise the opponent, moving models later, may be drawing LoF to a model whose LoF does not actually exist at the point at which it appears to rest. It imposes an imaginary layer over the board instead of the real one which both players are required to maintain in active memory.

      Better to play the game on the table, as intended.


      1. That imaginary layer is necessary anyway unless you make modelling have a mechanical effect.

        Take for example a Sepulchre Knight (posed with a sword sticking out in front). Are you really going to say that model isn’t allowed to face a wall while in base contact with it?


      2. In my experience, “this guy is against the wall” causes far fewer problems than “this guy sees him but not him or him”.

        Again, even if I deferred on the principle of intention, we would still have to go through the lasers spiel to find the final resting place of the model.

        But that’s just a technical contention. On a person-to-person level, I find just playing the game (without intention and laser splurging) to be faster, as well as a better discipline for smart play.


        Join the dark side. It’s funner here. 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s