Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nemo No Name

Microarts Studio Modular Infinity Mat

Are maps with easily identifiable distances a problem for Infinity?   38 members have voted

  1. 1. Are maps with easily identifiable distances a problem for Infinity?

    • No problem, aleady many ways to roughly estimate distance so this is a truly minor issue.
      28
    • I think it is fine for friendly games but serious tournaments should avoid using this.
      9
    • No way, this breaks one of the core elements of Infinity and should not be used.
      1

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

45 posts in this topic

MicroArts has a modular mat for Infinity consisting of 4x4 12'' by 12'' segments allowing lots of customisation possibilities. Now my fist reaction was AWESOME, but then... Infinity does not allow pre-measuring. One of the key skills currently is being able to tell distances. And this map would certainly make it somewhat easier. So, is this a problem? I mean you often have fixed objectives on the field (that you know locations and thus distances between), as well as myriad other possible distance giveaways (as well as simply measuring stuff pre-game).

So, what do you think, is this okay?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm an owner of this mat (but didn't had any opportunity to use it yet), but we had some discussion in the meta and most poeple didn't  like the idea of the mats helping to determine the rangebands.

 

On the other hand similar problem could be stated with missions with many objectives as everyone knows their distance to board edge/center of map/etc. (I'm mostly looking at TicTacToe and similar mission).

Also if you play with a known terrain you can easily know where ZoC starts and ends if you are hugging the wall. 

So I would say that skilled/clever players already are using many "tools" to accuratly "guesstimate" distances but they are not that obvious and visible as mats tiles. 


On top of that if those mats are "designed for Infinity" doesn't it mean they were approved by CB directly ? (I'm talking about idea of "parts" and "lines") 

 

Plus you technicly can premeasure everyting in your DZ during deployment (well if you have infiltrator with minlayer or G:Sync then you can premeasure everything in your half of the table).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to agree with Eciu on this one. I also own the mats, but have yet to play with them. The lines were something I was concerned with when I was looking at the kickstarter initially. But after some debate I figured most players know roughly the sizes of the majority of the common terrain available. Really the only real effect it would have is on new players who don't have that ability to judge the distance based on terrain knowledge. I could see how some people would want to ban them from tournaments, but I don't think it would be an issue for most players.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a non-issue in my view. No matter what both players know were 12" (your deployment zone), 24" (mid-field), 36" (opponents deployment zone), and 48" (back table edge) are. The tiles don't change that at all. Along with what the others said about a basic understanding of how big most terrain pieces are and objective locations in many games and tile edges become a very minor bonus. At worst it makes range estimation easier for those that don't pay attention to the basics, at best it sets both players with a minor help if they are paying attention.

I see this no different than playing on one printed mat over and over. Eventually you start knowing ranges between printed  details. The edge of that crosswalk to that storm drain is X inches, that crater to that rubble is X inches, etc. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eciu said:

Well I'm an owner of this mat (but didn't had any opportunity to use it yet), but we had some discussion in the meta and most poeple didn't  like the idea of the mats helping to determine the rangebands.

I feel it is pretty easy to judge ranges within about an 1 1/2"  in line from DZ to DZ without the aid of these mats. They dont really make the more precise geusstimates any easier, and they do nothing for diagonal measurements.

I have played on mine and liked how easily they made setting up objectives pregame. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you can use these for measurement advantage (to a point) so to can fixed 3rd party buildings dimensions, HVT placement, deployment placement, objective placement.

There are also those who have a 'carpenter's' eye and just estimate the distance all the time regardless of table based assists.

So... meh

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jfunkd said:

I have played on mine and liked how easily they made setting up objectives pregame. 

Yes that's another "bonus" no there's little problem with setting up central objective ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no problem with it. Both sides have equal access to the information. 

But i'm curious what the pie-slicing players think of it in particular. To me the situation feels very similar. If players are expected to judge distances themselves why would placement for LoF during shooting be different? Could a player not place a model outside an opponents positive range band by saying that's what he intends? I do not play this way, but to me, they seem similar. Basically, if you accept one, why wouldn't you accept the other?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jujoji said:

I have absolutely no problem with it. Both sides have equal access to the information. 

But i'm curious what the pie-slicing players think of it in particular. To me the situation feels very similar. If players are expected to judge distances themselves why would placement for LoF during shooting be different? Could a player not place a model outside an opponents positive range band by saying that's what he intends? I do not play this way, but to me, they seem similar. Basically, if you accept one, why wouldn't you accept the other?

You're bringing in an unrelated issue, but the answer is very simple:

You could pie slice within rules easily by simply spending 10-15 minutes per order checking LoF until you hit the exact pie slice you wanted. Hence, by saying "I want to pie slice that guy there" simply saves 10-15 minutes of LoF checking. On the other hand, no matter how much time you spend, you cannot measure and thus cannot know if you are inside or outside the positive range. Hence, simply saying "I move just to be outside your positive range" cannot be valid.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Nemo No Name said:

You're bringing in an unrelated issue, but the answer is very simple:

You could pie slice within rules easily by simply spending 10-15 minutes per order checking LoF until you hit the exact pie slice you wanted. Hence, by saying "I want to pie slice that guy there" simply saves 10-15 minutes of LoF checking. On the other hand, no matter how much time you spend, you cannot measure and thus cannot know if you are inside or outside the positive range. Hence, simply saying "I move just to be outside your positive range" cannot be valid.

I'm actually really curious about this. What are the rules regarding taking back an action? Can I move a model, check LoF, not like the outcome and take that back? If i keep my fingers on the model and edge it forward until i find the LoF i'm after, is that ok? What if i edge it just too far?

So, unless intent play is within the rules, both are against the rules. Meaning a player would have to move their model and live with the consequences, which can result in mistakes. Just like judging range bands. So in the end, intent play is a house rule. One i feel is very similar to placement regarding range bands.

Somewhat related, I don't really think time should be considered as an unlimited resource either. I'd really like to see tournament games subject to equal time constraints for both players. But hitting some sort of chess clock between every order, aro, etc seems fair, but extreme. Either way that time spent checking LoF would matter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so much off topic, so early, and such inflamed topic?

In either case, being able to tell if something is 12" makes a huge difference. Game is still playable, but you get much closer to playing with complete information (i.e. pre-measuring). This is actually a fairly common issue with urban game mats in general 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mahtamori said:

Why so much off topic, so early, and such inflamed topic?

It sounds completely on topic to me, but i can't deny the rest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make it easy to setup objectives 

6 hours ago, jfunkd said:

I feel it is pretty easy to judge ranges within about an 1 1/2"  in line from DZ to DZ without the aid of these mats. They dont really make the more precise geusstimates any easier, and they do nothing for diagonal measurements.

I have played on mine and liked how easily they made setting up objectives pregame. 

This roughly the same experience I've had as well. There are a number of factors mitigating this effect.

If I recall correctly the only scenarios where it absolutely takes out any guess work are quadrant related, and even then the only new information you get is the left/right split.

It also helps that the only really important range band break point it reveals is 24" which is already estimated by guess if something is half a table length away. 8, 16, and 32 are still quite nebulous.

These are also urban scape tiles and thus tend to be filled with other things that can be used to guess distances. A large amount of buildings lend to be about 8" in length, with the objective room being the standard bearer.

Probably the most influential aspect of the information it provides is when calculating movement, and even then I rarely find myself moving in either a straight vertical or horizontal line.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jujoji said:

I'm actually really curious about this. What are the rules regarding taking back an action? Can I move a model, check LoF, not like the outcome and take that back? If i keep my fingers on the model and edge it forward until i find the LoF i'm after, is that ok? What if i edge it just too far?

So, unless intent play is within the rules, both are against the rules. Meaning a player would have to move their model and live with the consequences, which can result in mistakes. Just like judging range bands. So in the end, intent play is a house rule. One i feel is very similar to placement regarding range bands.

Somewhat related, I don't really think time should be considered as an unlimited resource either. I'd really like to see tournament games subject to equal time constraints for both players. But hitting some sort of chess clock between every order, aro, etc seems fair, but extreme. Either way that time spent checking LoF would matter.

You don't have to take back any actions. Pre-measuring isn't allowed, but pre-checking LOS from any two points on the table is. So, without moving your model, you can take a silhouette or your finger and say "If I move here, who can see me? Ok, how about here? Here?" and so on until you find the point you want. Since no one wants to deal with this level of time consuming minutia, most people just take the model and start their move and then get precise at the end, moving the model back and forth in the little range until they are where they want to be. You have to work with your opponent to agree on the LOS from where you want to move. Human beings are not laser beams, we have to compromise a bit. 

Ive long said that intent based play, within reason, is literally the only way that we can play a game based on precise measurements while using imprecise models on an imprecise board with our imprecise human hands and eyes. We can't expect nano-meter perfect measurements blind on the first try, it's impossible. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoshTheStampede said:

Ive long said that intent based play, within reason, is literally the only way that we can play a game based on precise measurements while using imprecise models on an imprecise board with our imprecise human hands and eyes. We can't expect nano-meter perfect measurements blind on the first try, it's impossible. 

Doesn't this also apply to range bands? The distance between models is subject to the same imprecision. 

I'm curious about this idea that i can use a silhouette or point at various locations determining LoS. Is this stated in the rules? I know it is open information but does it say LoS is something to be discussed anywhere, anytime, even when no action is being taken? Wouldn't this only be discussed when deciding to shoot or take some sort of action? 

In the end a model still needs to be placed, no matter how much discussion is had regarding LoS. Without intent play that imprecision/guess can lead to a failure in slicing that pie. Intent play is bypassing that step, so why not bypass the step of guessing placement for range bands as well? I really don't see the difference.

Keep in mind that if i had my way i'd have a grid based or even a touchscreen mat where all LoS, cover, and mods would be calculated and all known to players without room for interpretation or mistakes. X-COM essentially.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jujoji said:

Doesn't this also apply to range bands? The distance between models is subject to the same imprecision. 

I'm curious about this idea that i can use a silhouette or point at various locations determining LoS. Is this stated in the rules? I know it is open information but does it say LoS is something to be discussed anywhere, anytime, even when no action is being taken? Wouldn't this only be discussed when deciding to shoot or take some sort of action? 

In the end a model still needs to be placed, no matter how much discussion is had regarding LoS. Without intent play that imprecision/guess can lead to a failure in slicing that pie. Intent play is bypassing that step, so why not bypass the step of guessing placement for range bands as well? I really don't see the difference.

Keep in mind that if i had my way i'd have a grid based or even a touchscreen mat where all LoS, cover, and mods would be calculated and all known to players without room for interpretation or mistakes. X-COM essentially.

Not really. We imprecise humans with imprecise eyes can measure distances with a tape measure a lot more accurately than we can determine LOS without our heads being small enough to get down to model level and really see. There's already a larger fudge factor in LOS than in distance, basically. I expect my opponents to be able to use a tape measure to measure distances to within, say, a mm or two of accuracy, because I can, everyone can, that's easy. LOS is significantly harder and so you have to meet me halfway, you know?

I don't believe it specifies in the rules that you can use a silhouette to check LOS, but I'm pretty sure it does say that LOS from any two points on the table is open information at all times, so it follows that you're allowed to check it whenever you want. 

I certainly believe there's a way to take "intent" too far - that way is to demand I let you take advantage of a point which you know mathematically must exist but which you can't actually find even with me letting you wiggle back and forth. I don't need people to place a model blind and say OK THERE IT IS and then check and no backsies - I find that a little too much to ask. But if you know there's a spot you can pie slice me, cool - find it. Put the model there. 

To get back to the original topic though, I don't have an issue with the mat, and here's why - everyone already does this, to some degree. If you play on a table you've played on before, you know roughly how long this building or that is, you know roughly how long your hand and your forearm are, etc. You know how far apart consoles are and whether spot X to spot Y is in good sniper range. Its mostly subconscious, but its there and we all do it to some degree. Putting a 12-inch grid on the table isn't gonna change that much. Now, if it was a 1-inch grid? That's too much for infinity. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, JoshTheStampede said:

I find that a little too much to ask.

Isn't that the problem? Everyone has their limit or spot where they draw the line. I find it strange that pie slicing is ok for many but doing the same for range bands is not. I agree with you that one has more issues than the other. But at the same time there are not so many they become too dissimilar. 

When it comes to the mat mentioned in the OP where do players draw the line of what is acceptable? If the 4x4 grid is ok, what about 4x6, 6x6, 6x8 etc?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jujoji said:

 

Isn't that the problem? Everyone has their limit or spot where they draw the line. I find it strange that pie slicing is ok for many but doing the same for range bands is not. I agree with you that one has more issues than the other. But at the same time there are not so many they become too dissimilar. 

When it comes to the mat mentioned in the OP where do players draw the line of what is acceptable? If the 4x4 grid is ok, what about 4x6, 6x6, 6x8 etc?

Well, that doesn't really matter since the 12x12 grid is the only one that exists. I suppose every TO or playgroup would have a different hypothetical breaking point. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dlfleetw said:

While you can use these for measurement advantage (to a point) so to can fixed 3rd party buildings dimensions, HVT placement, deployment placement, objective placement.

There are also those who have a 'carpenter's' eye and just estimate the distance all the time regardless of table based assists.

Agreed. I have no problem with these kinds of mats.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just odd then. I don't see how a game can be seriously competitive when any match or tournament can be so inconsistent each time you play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jujoji said:

I find it strange that pie slicing is ok for many but doing the same for range bands is not. 

Because you're allowed to check LoF but you're not allowed to check distances.

And infinitely-fine pie slicing isn't actually that common in my experience, I've only ever come across it on the forums even though I've played in Britain, Spain and Australia. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Because you're allowed to check LoF

But what are the rules about checking LoF and moving troopers in relation to one another? Is there a sequence that must be followed?

EDIT: You're not allowed to pie slice, using intent play. Which is what i'm talking about, not checking LoF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Because you're allowed to check LoF but you're not allowed to check distances.

And infinitely-fine pie slicing isn't actually that common in my experience, I've only ever come across it on the forums even though I've played in Britain, Spain and Australia. 

A player in my meta have played in German tournaments (southern I think it was) where they did both infinitely fine and second degree slicing (i.e. I'll place my model here so both of these models have lof if your dude moves around that corner and you won't be able to slice that pie)

10 hours ago, Jujoji said:

But what are the rules about checking LoF and moving troopers in relation to one another? Is there a sequence that must be followed?

They're all fine, the contention is whether 1) your opponent have to help you check LOF or 2) whether the final position you drop the model in is final or if your stated intended relative position is the correct one. (It's not a sequence issue)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, southern German meta is all about infinitely fine pie slicing. It's works perfectly fine to be honest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mahtamori said:

A player in my meta have played in German tournaments (southern I think it was) where they did both infinitely fine and second degree slicing (i.e. I'll place my model here so both of these models have lof if your dude moves around that corner and you won't be able to slice that pie)

They're all fine, the contention is whether 1) your opponent have to help you check LOF or 2) whether the final position you drop the model in is final or if your stated intended relative position is the correct one. (It's not a sequence issue)

I've always liked the idea of being able to do the same pie slicing with ARO's. Positioning two+ troopers essentially on top of each other to cover the same location. It seems fair when rules regarding LoS assume if you can see me, i can see you. So if you can pie slice that ARO, I can pie slice that location. Because frankly, when hugging a corner and shooting around it a trooper is going to expose more than a nanometer of themselves. To actually pie slice that fine a margin I always imagined a trooper would have to fall back from that corner at just the right angle. This can mean being a notable distance away from the actual corner to achieve their intent.

I'm not sure where you came by those two contentious points. I'm not the most familiar with the rules. I can't recall the rules pertaining to this issue. I'd rather not have to read them entirely to find them either. Page numbers, quotes, or links would be greatly appreciated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0