Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Recently this came up in a game with a friend of mine. A little backstory - this player and I have been friends for almost 10 years now, and both play infinity, but never game against each other since we are remote (he lived > 5h drive). Recently, we both met up for a game, and discovered a pretty big difference in local metas regarding Infinity's "intent" mechanic.

For a little background on the issue of intent as a whole (this is not me, btw) see the thread here:

http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/33175-intent/?page=2



Long story short, there are (at least) two ways to play the game.

Side A) "Game of intent" - you declare what you want to do, and then position the models to make it work. LOF is mainly based upon intent (i.e., I intend to peek til I see enemy A but not enemy B)

Side B) Model position. You move the model, then we see from there. LOF is based 100% upon model position which is checked with lasers, silhouettes, etc.


The divide comes into play when dealing with enemies grouped closely together, especially at longer ranges. While peeking enough to see A not B may be geometrically possible, it is physically very difficult to represent on the table.


I'm wondering how people play in your meta, and if you've implemented any fixes for this. In my meta we've talked about a fix which is, if you "peek" against two models that have overlapping silhouettes, and they are both outside your Zone of Control, then both will get AROs. This allows you to set up side by side snipers to ARO corners together at longer ranges, while allowing you to "slice the pie" at closer ranges. We'll playtest it to see how it goes.

Well, I got into the game with my friend. We play by Intent.
Most of the meta we play with also uses Intent, as we have several of the higher ranked ITS players in the US, and they are the ones that helped get the game going in our area for the most part.

It helps make for a more relaxed game in our Meta. We do have an influx of people coming in from other game systems that are a bit more, "strict", on LOS interpretations, so they are wont to argue for the "place it and see" side of the game, but we try to push Intent style play for the most part.

Our meta tries very much to keep the game atmosphere friendly, comfortable, and down to earth. Playing where we have to micromanage fractions of an inch to get perfect shots because of Laser line "Gotcha!" is not something we encourage.

Intent with visual proof. If you cant pull it off then just like in life your boned. What it means in game play is nearly every time someone want to slice they have to move away from cover to make the angle work.

I've seen this thread before. Things got ugly quickly.

Stating intent is always a good thing, but sometimes doing exactly what you state may not be possible, and you may not know this until after you have measured and moved. The active player has to realize and accept that. Things like cautious movement, for example. You can state it, and them measure and move, and then realize, "Ooops, I needed another 1/2" of movement to get completely out of LoF." Ah well, here comes some unopposed AROs. OTOH, if they moved 1/2" too far, I would say, "Just back the mini up out of LoF."

Bear in mind that measuring and moving is not really exact either. An 1/8" or so either way is not something I will stress over, especially if I know what the player intends.

In general, I would rather the game play smoothly, without all manner of delay as a player tries to place his mini in just the right spot... So intent helps here. Infinity requires players to communicate. Stating Intent is part of that.

 Red Harvest wrote:
I've seen this thread before. Things got ugly quickly.

Stating intent is always a good thing, but sometimes doing exactly what you state may not be possible, and you may not know this until after you have measured and moved. The active player has to realize and accept that. Things like cautious movement, for example. You can state it, and them measure and move, and then realize, "Ooops, I needed another 1/2" of movement to get completely out of LoF." Ah well, here comes some unopposed AROs. OTOH, if they moved 1/2" too far, I would say, "Just back the mini up out of LoF."

Bear in mind that measuring and moving is not really exact either. An 1/8" or so either way is not something I will stress over, especially if I know what the player intends.

In general, I would rather the game play smoothly, without all manner of delay as a player tries to place his mini in just the right spot... So intent helps here. Infinity requires players to communicate. Stating Intent is part of that.

So I let this thread go for quite a while before offering my personal opinion, but it's probably been long enough.

I agree with your interpretation of things. I think intent is good for keeping the game smooth. It also changes the dynamic and puts you into "oops!" situations much better (trying to jump gaps, trying to move between cover pieces, etc.)

A lot of the arguments against it are really arguing against abusing intent (they call it "infinite fiddling" interpretations of the rules). I agree that when people try to declare intent to move nanometers, it seems a little bit absurd, but these issues are pretty rare in games IMO.

The alternative to intent requires me to walk across the table to the opponent's side hundreds of times over the course of a turn to check LOF. That sounds exhausting.

Intent for me. I've only just started playing outside of O:I but it seems the best way to make it work. With grenades for example, I had to eye 16 inches and place my finger at the furthest point I thought I could reach and still hit the two targets. I don't see how else you could do this fairly without using the intent mechanic. I usually talk through each move before doing it, if it means I mess up then that's my fault. However, this game doesn't work without loads of communication between players, and I'm often asking my opponent to tell me when my model would or would not be out of LoS. That works both ways though.

Stated intent using open information for me. If someone needs take backsies because the stated intent wasn't clear enough, then it's up to the opponent to decide yai or nai.

For ranges, though, there are no intent. Can't say "I move up so I'm just inside zone of control" since that's not open information.

P.s. this topic amounts to flame bait in the Infinity community, just fyi.

I voted other.

I have been playing that you:

1- state intent of the action, including where you plan to move.
2- Do the real move to the spot, if you can make it.
3- the actual outcome of the action has to be based on what can realistically happen, if you intend move to place the model around a corner with respect to one target, as actions tend to target things. Both players work to make this the outcome, but the final model position is the final real model position.

This of course causes the "pie slicing argument" mathematically there is a point in space where you can come around a corner and 2 models on the same level next to each other, only one can see you. Physically this almost impossible to achieve on the tabletop, and in real life if someone was rounding a corner they could not move in such a way to prevent two people next to each other watching the corner from having both see them.

This is why we play that you can only list intent against one target, so you can move to a point where you have LoF to a model, which will likely have LoF back to you, which eliminates people saying "I have LoF from here" other person- "nope, you can't shoot" first person "but I would have moved here then to see you..." and stops people from trying to create a physical paradox on the table where a model has LoF from only 1 other model in a group of 2, when you can actually draw LoF from 2 models.

Another way I would like to try playing is you need to see ~5mm x 5mm of the model. This would allow for pie slicing of models that are not right next to each other, but models right next to each other would both get AROs.

given how often there are multiple AROs in the book, it seems pretty RAI that multiple AROs are supposed to happen sometimes.

Yeah, the idea that multiple AROs won't really happen in practice with full "intent" rules... just seems like a big flaw. One that favors rambo'ing / slicing the pie / etc. Seems like a tweak is needed, maybe like the OP's group? Two guys covering an alley should both be able to fire at least sometimes...

blaktoof wrote:
Another way I would like to try playing is you need to see ~5mm x 5mm of the model. This would allow for pie slicing of models that are not right next to each other, but models right next to each other would both get AROs.

given how often there are multiple AROs in the book, it seems pretty RAI that multiple AROs are supposed to happen sometimes.

That's also a good idea for fixing it! Two guys just need to be able to fire more often if they're next to each other, imo.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Stated intent using open information for me. If someone needs take backsies because the stated intent wasn't clear enough, then it's up to the opponent to decide yai or nai.

For ranges, though, there are no intent. Can't say "I move up so I'm just inside zone of control" since that's not open information.

P.s. this topic amounts to flame bait in the Infinity community, just fyi.

A topic like this can remain a discussion without becoming flamebait as long as posters in the thread remain reasonable adults. The reason that many of the discussions on Data Sphere degenerated into idiocy can be boiled down to a "my way or the highway" mentality where there is, according to that poster, only one interpretation of the rules. Given that the community is split, I think a reasonable human being can conclude that the rules are actually quite unclear.

I agree with the way that you deal with open and closed information. LOF is open information while ranges are definitely closed information. One rules problem I see often in batreps (though rarely in my own games, which makes me think it's somewhat unusual) is where someone will say, "I'll throw this grenade within 8 inches." Which, reading the rules as you say, is definitely incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, the idea that multiple AROs won't really happen in practice with full "intent" rules... just seems like a big flaw.

Definitely agree that this is a problem - with full intent, you will only see multiple AROs where the opponent doesn't care, or if you are playing with declaration = action, and an opponent forgets about a second unit that has LOF. Since there are no takebacks after declaration of intent and moving the first short skill, this is actually surprisingly common especially in competitive settings where you're trying to do things quickly.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
Stated intent using open information for me. If someone needs take backsies because the stated intent wasn't clear enough, then it's up to the opponent to decide yai or nai.

For ranges, though, there are no intent. Can't say "I move up so I'm just inside zone of control" since that's not open information.

P.s. this topic amounts to flame bait in the Infinity community, just fyi.

A topic like this can remain a discussion without becoming flamebait as long as posters in the thread remain reasonable adults. The reason that many of the discussions on Data Sphere degenerated into idiocy can be boiled down to a "my way or the highway" mentality where there is, according to that poster, only one interpretation of the rules. Given that the community is split, I think a reasonable human being can conclude that the rules are actually quite unclear.

Are you certain it was on DataSphere and not the Official Forums? I recall glancing at such a thread on the Official Forums some time ago, back when I would stray out of the 'creative' sub-forums. Now, I don't even bother going there at all.

The main problem I have always had with pie slicing, which is what the intent argument always is really about:

Under movement you declare where you intend to move, then actually move there, the actual movement as we are told in the rules could end up being not the same as the intended movement.

The short of the above, you can intend something, and declare it, and then do it but the actual placement of the model on the tabletop may not be exactly what you declared.

If you declare you are going around a corner to target one model, and there are two models around the corner right next to each other[maybe one is even slightly behind the other so they are even closer to each other on an angle when you round the corner...] If you place the model somewhere and then say:

"Okay only that one model can see me"

it does not actually happen on the tabletop because both models could potentially draw LoF still-because you physically will not be able to place the model [most likely] where only the one has LoF.

Why for movement when we are told the actual real outcome of the action may be different than the declared- and play it from the real outcome.

but for the above "pie slicing", which we are not actually told we can do anywhere but we assume because LoF is open information, we declare and then the real actual outcome of where the model is placed is ignored. Nothing in the rules tells us we can ignore where the model really is, and what the LoF really are. The main instance of declared intent/real which is for movement shows that real is what you use to actually play with- and the real does not matter once the model is placed. It creates a double standard in the rules for intent/real which we are not told we can do based on assumptions we as players make. A double standard that goes against the same ruling for declared/real movement distance.

 Red Harvest wrote:

Are you certain it was on DataSphere and not the Official Forums? I recall glancing at such a thread on the Official Forums some time ago, back when I would stray out of the 'creative' sub-forums. Now, I don't even bother going there at all.

Nope, not certain at all.

You're probably right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

Spoiler:

The main problem I have always had with pie slicing, which is what the intent argument always is really about:

Under movement you declare where you intend to move, then actually move there, the actual movement as we are told in the rules could end up being not the same as the intended movement.

The short of the above, you can intend something, and declare it, and then do it but the actual placement of the model on the tabletop may not be exactly what you declared.

If you declare you are going around a corner to target one model, and there are two models around the corner right next to each other[maybe one is even slightly behind the other so they are even closer to each other on an angle when you round the corner...] If you place the model somewhere and then say:

"Okay only that one model can see me"

it does not actually happen on the tabletop because both models could potentially draw LoF still-because you physically will not be able to place the model [most likely] where only the one has LoF.

Why for movement when we are told the actual real outcome of the action may be different than the declared- and play it from the real outcome.

but for the above "pie slicing", which we are not actually told we can do anywhere but we assume because LoF is open information, we declare and then the real actual outcome of where the model is placed is ignored. Nothing in the rules tells us we can ignore where the model really is, and what the LoF really are. The main instance of declared intent/real which is for movement shows that real is what you use to actually play with- and the real does not matter once the model is placed. It creates a double standard in the rules for intent/real which we are not told we can do based on assumptions we as players make. A double standard that goes against the same ruling for declared/real movement distance.

So Blacktoof I agree that there is a discrepancy between intent and feasibility which is easy to quantify in movement distance, and more difficult to quantify in pie slicing.

The problem is actually exacerbated when you consider that a second short skill can be performed anywhere along the path of movement of the first short move skill. So you can potentially step to a corner and step back, then declare that you'll shoot while at the corner. Since you never actually place a model at the corner to determine LOF, in a way, it gets around the issue of having to physically indicate model position with anything other than a declaration of intent.

So RAW, according to your interpretation (which I'm not saying is incorrect at all), it's OK to pie-slice via intent when not ending your move at a corner, but model position determines LOF when the model ends its move at the corner. Strange no?

No you must still move the model along it whole movement path, you can't just place the model at the end of it movement. The rules are clear on this. Because AROs can be pick at any point the by the model using a ARO.

So not strange, impossible. As the sequence of event would never happen in the first place. As you can't teleport.

Noir wrote:
No you must still move the model along it whole movement path, you can't just place the model at the end of it movement. The rules are clear on this. Because AROs can be pick at any point the by the model using a ARO.

So not strange, impossible. As the sequence of event would never happen in the first place. As you can't teleport.

Citation stating you must physically slide the model across its entire movement path?

AROs don't really necessitate that because of the "if you see me I see you" LOS mechanic.

No, you don't need to slide the model, but you do need to verify that the model both can move along it's path and that the model does not use up extra movement because of it's base size. If you don't you end up with McMurrough inside the Armoury. Or a TR bot. Or have a Ninja run around a couple of corners, effectively moving 5-5 instead of 4-4.

If anyone is ever uncertain about movement, plonk silhouette markers down wherever relevant along the movement line and leave them there until the end of the order.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Mahtamori wrote:
Stated intent using open information for me. If someone needs take backsies because the stated intent wasn't clear enough, then it's up to the opponent to decide yai or nai.

For ranges, though, there are no intent. Can't say "I move up so I'm just inside zone of control" since that's not open information.

P.s. this topic amounts to flame bait in the Infinity community, just fyi.

A topic like this can remain a discussion without becoming flamebait as long as posters in the thread remain reasonable adults. The reason that many of the discussions on Data Sphere degenerated into idiocy can be boiled down to a "my way or the highway" mentality where there is, according to that poster, only one interpretation of the rules. Given that the community is split, I think a reasonable human being can conclude that the rules are actually quite unclear.

That's kind of a tautology - it's not a flamewar if it doesn't get there. Flamebait are not threads which degenerate, but threads on topics or with content which invite to degenerate. In either case, the Infinity community on these boards are too small to really snowball, but I think threads like it have degenerated both on official and on Data Sphere.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Noir wrote:
No you must still move the model along it whole movement path, you can't just place the model at the end of it movement. The rules are clear on this. Because AROs can be pick at any point the by the model using a ARO.

So not strange, impossible. As the sequence of event would never happen in the first place. As you can't teleport.

Citation stating you must physically slide the model across its entire movement path?

AROs don't really necessitate that because of the "if you see me I see you" LOS mechanic.

Page 20 rule book.

"When moving troopers around the battlefield, player must measure the complete route."

While you DON'T need to physically move the model, you don't get to skip the movement path and avoid ARO by teleporting to the end of the models movement. So in effect you move the model along it whole path taking any AROs created while moving.

So again it impossible to do as you suggested.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:

Are you certain it was on DataSphere and not the Official Forums? I recall glancing at such a thread on the Official Forums some time ago, back when I would stray out of the 'creative' sub-forums. Now, I don't even bother going there at all.

Nope, not certain at all.

You're probably right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:

Spoiler:

The main problem I have always had with pie slicing, which is what the intent argument always is really about:

Under movement you declare where you intend to move, then actually move there, the actual movement as we are told in the rules could end up being not the same as the intended movement.

The short of the above, you can intend something, and declare it, and then do it but the actual placement of the model on the tabletop may not be exactly what you declared.

If you declare you are going around a corner to target one model, and there are two models around the corner right next to each other[maybe one is even slightly behind the other so they are even closer to each other on an angle when you round the corner...] If you place the model somewhere and then say:

"Okay only that one model can see me"

it does not actually happen on the tabletop because both models could potentially draw LoF still-because you physically will not be able to place the model [most likely] where only the one has LoF.

Why for movement when we are told the actual real outcome of the action may be different than the declared- and play it from the real outcome.

but for the above "pie slicing", which we are not actually told we can do anywhere but we assume because LoF is open information, we declare and then the real actual outcome of where the model is placed is ignored. Nothing in the rules tells us we can ignore where the model really is, and what the LoF really are. The main instance of declared intent/real which is for movement shows that real is what you use to actually play with- and the real does not matter once the model is placed. It creates a double standard in the rules for intent/real which we are not told we can do based on assumptions we as players make. A double standard that goes against the same ruling for declared/real movement distance.

So Blacktoof I agree that there is a discrepancy between intent and feasibility which is easy to quantify in movement distance, and more difficult to quantify in pie slicing.

The problem is actually exacerbated when you consider that a second short skill can be performed anywhere along the path of movement of the first short move skill. So you can potentially step to a corner and step back, then declare that you'll shoot while at the corner. Since you never actually place a model at the corner to determine LOF, in a way, it gets around the issue of having to physically indicate model position with anything other than a declaration of intent.

So RAW, according to your interpretation (which I'm not saying is incorrect at all), it's OK to pie-slice via intent when not ending your move at a corner, but model position determines LOF when the model ends its move at the corner. Strange no?

Much like the skill lean out you have to, or can be asked to place the model where it is firing from- or a Silhouette marker. As a order is made of the two short skills happening simultaneously the rules which govern how to determine LoF by default include how to resolve a BS attack when it happens "mid move" as moving to your full distance and firing is the same rules wise as moving part distance firing, then completing the move i.e. they both happen simultaneously. Even if that were not the case as LoF is open information for both players, the reactive player can request you place your model where you are firing from to determine LoF, then regardless of what you wished to intend if more than 1 model can really draw LoF to your model- then more than one model can draw LoF to your model. There are no actual rules which prevent a model from being able to fire that has LoF giving it an available ARO.

Noir wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Noir wrote:
No you must still move the model along it whole movement path, you can't just place the model at the end of it movement. The rules are clear on this. Because AROs can be pick at any point the by the model using a ARO.

So not strange, impossible. As the sequence of event would never happen in the first place. As you can't teleport.

Citation stating you must physically slide the model across its entire movement path?

AROs don't really necessitate that because of the "if you see me I see you" LOS mechanic.

Page 20 rule book.

"When moving troopers around the battlefield, player must measure the complete route."

While you DON'T need to physically move the model, you don't get to skip the movement path and avoid ARO by teleporting to the end of the models movement. So in effect you move the model along it whole path taking any AROs created while moving.

So again it impossible to do as you suggested.

Not really...you must measure the route and declare intent. There is no requirement to place the model in order to determine LOF as long as you don't stop at the corner. Teleporting is not a necessary consequence of the scenario I described at all.

AROs can occur as normal due to the "if I see you, you see me" mechanic.

The I can see you part can only work in the first place if you can show you got the shot on the table. You can't say I can shot you becauae my model peeked out, you need to show not tell. I get to see the whole movement and if I decide I should get a ARO at such-and-such point in the movement you must place the model or silhouette so we know for sure one way or the other. You don't get to pick where I pick my ARO, so must prove I don't legally get them.

Noir wrote:
The I can see you part can only work in the first place if you can show you got the shot on the table. You can't say I can shot you becauae my model peeked out, you need to show not tell. I get to see the whole movement and if I decide I should get a ARO at such-and-such point in the movement you must place the model or silhouette so we know for sure one way or the other. You don't get to pick where I pick my ARO, so must prove I don't legally get them.

Really not sure at all what you are trying to say here...

I think Noir is trying to say you need to actually put the model where it is firing from, or a Silhouette marker, when the BS attack is resolved. Before you complete the models move.

Models of course always get to complete their move so if you get gunned down you will be behind cover or wherever the move would take the model...but as LoF is open information to show range/LoF you cant measure from a point but must measure from a model or silhoette marker that represents the model.

When this happens regardless of what is intended if you place the model and more than one model has LOF the idea of intent breaks down, because the actual placement of where the model really is gives 2+ AROs which the rules do not have any precedence for denying because the one player wanted to say "only one model will get to see this model".

either that or I also have no idea what Noir is implying No offense intended to anyone here.

I think side B has it correct. Because your intent can always be to get LoF on A but not B, and then when you've positioned your model and find out that B actually does have LoF to React to it I can see the "But that wasn't my intent" coming into play and take backs happening to adjust the model in a way in which it can't be seen.

Because playing purely on intent, intent is always how you want it to be and can handicap for poor judgment on the players side of things when used in that way.

I don't think you can use intent to claim who can and cant see when placing / moving a model.

How I look at it, granted im not a infinity vet. Is like 'I intend to move to here, to get LoF on X' I didn't intend for 'y' to get LoF at any point in my move as a result of me gaining LoF on X, but that would be considered poor judgment on my part. and the opponent would then gain 2 ARO's, not altering my path and placement as a result to compensate for my lack of judgment / mistake just because it wasn't my intention to give up a 2nd ARO

Intent all the way, it helps run the game a lot smoother (and faster) if you're not fighting over every 1/8th of an inch. I think in all honesty if you play a lot of games (especially tournaments, against people you don't know well) there is not really any other way.

Note that this doesn't mean you lose the ability to 'surprise' an opponent. Had someone inching along a walkway, saying "I'm just moving this guy far enough so he gets LoS to him", and forgot that he had strayed into LoS of another of my troopers who then had a nice shot on him.

At the end of the day, it's a miniatures game - everything needs to come back to that. Declare your intent if you like, but you've got to put a model down. Pacific, how did you determine that your opponent had moved a model into LoF of another of your troopers without physically placing a model?

It could lead to some boring games where it takes an hour to play one turn; "I'll go here. No, then I get AROed by those two. Here? no. Here? no ...", but thankfully I don't play against people who do that.

As Pacific said, I've heard it actually speeds up the game, but it's still a major turnoff to me regarding the ruleset...

It shouldn't mate. I can completely understand the concern as from the outside it would appear that you're removing the colourful element of moving units around and getting sneak shots off at people, but in reality there is so much interaction between miniatures in Infinity that if you don't have this (and you have an opponent who is a bit of a type, the guy who used to use a special 2" rule for spacing his mob of Ork boyz as he moved them across the table in 40k) you can end up with a difficult game.

And actually, in practice a lot of the time you aren't actually saying "I'm moving this guy just along to here" because it's pretty obvious what you are doing. And of course, outside of ITS or with a regular opponent, you wouldn't need to do it either (when you know someone, you can guess an intent without them having to vocalise it).

So, actually I'm not sure this is a big issue at all, and certainly not something I've really found myself having to give conscious effort to myself during games.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
At the end of the day, it's a miniatures game - everything needs to come back to that. Declare your intent if you like, but you've got to put a model down. Pacific, how did you determine that your opponent had moved a model into LoF of another of your troopers without physically placing a model?

It could lead to some boring games where it takes an hour to play one turn; "I'll go here. No, then I get AROed by those two. Here? no. Here? no ...", but thankfully I don't play against people who do that.

You do realise that you are required to provide your opponent with information regarding ARO opportunities before your opponent makes final declaration of where he intends to go?

At the end of the day, you'll end up with both players helping each other out with the miniature's final placement, regardless if you are subscribed to placement or intent. Or, you know, you could play WH40k, WMH, Malifaux etc if you don't feel like helping your opponent out with their move and information tracking.

Mahatmori - sort of. You are required to provide your opponent with LOF information if he asks for it because that is considered open information. I would never expect my opponent to say, "Before you go there, just know that units A, B, and C can ARO." It's up to the active player to figure out, based on the information available to both players, where he wants to go. It's still entirely to have moments where you walk into the open and get splattered by a guy you didn't see, especially on somewhat more open tables with long sight lines or lots of windows.

So eventually a person will learn when playing someone who's dead set on importing other games' line of thinking to Infinity to always constantly incessantly ask for LOF.

Which is what leads to the situation AndrewGPaul mentioned.

It isn't a case of intent vs placement, but a case of cooperative play versus minimal effort. A player who thinks intent is the way to go can play just fine with someone who wants to play placement as long as both are of the cooperative mindset. Neither really needs to ever find out their differences of ideology. It's when one party doesn't want to be helpful that the game breaks down - when one player thinks "I see what you were trying to do, but I can capitalize on the error you just did so I'll shut up" that the game goes sour.

Essentially, both sides of the debate considers the other side of being minimal effort. On the official forums, at least.