IIFT Use in Playtests

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,687
Reaction score
4,343
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The next time I play a (not too large) scenario using the IIFT (which is my default), I will try to write down the number of attacks where the result would have been different (taking into account any MC/TC result) with the IFT.

My bet is on a single digit number. Compare to the number of occasions where one player or another misjudges a LOS, or fails to guess what a concealed stack really is.
It depends on the FP of the units involved.
With 3 or 5 FP squads, the IIFT will deal many more different results from the IFT than 4 or 6 FP ones.

That said, the playtesters' skill level will weigh much more in the evaluation of a scenario than the differences between the IFT and the optional table.
 
Last edited:

Jwil2020

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
331
Reaction score
395
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
Please excuse what is probably a dumb question, but can someone enlighten me on what CTC stood for on Ole Boe's IIFT (now replaced with PTC on the "Official" version)? Cowering Task Check??
Also, am I correct in thinking his version is no longer used?
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,687
Reaction score
4,343
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
It is explained in the footnotes.
Concealment Task Check: doesn't generate TC vs concealed units.
One of the major flaws of the IIFT is that it strips concealment.
So an additional option is the CTC one.20690
 

Jwil2020

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
331
Reaction score
395
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
It is explained in the footnotes.
Ah yes, the footnotes. Should have thought to look there first.
However, I don't see CTC referenced in the footnote for 7.37. It does explain the meaning behind the Blue PTC (only used for non-concealed units), which, as you point out, means the same as Ole Boe's CTC.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Robin.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,687
Reaction score
4,343
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Ah yes, the footnotes. Should have thought to look there first.
However, I don't see CTC referenced in the footnote for 7.37. It does explain the meaning behind the Blue PTC (only used for non-concealed units), which, as you point out, means the same as Ole Boe's CTC.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Robin.
See the screenshot of the footnote that I posted hereabove.
Second paragraph explaines the Conditional* Task Check.

* and not "Concealment", sorry for the confusion.
 

Jwil2020

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
331
Reaction score
395
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
Yup. I read the same FN in my RB (after you pointed it out in your first reply). What threw me was I was looking for the acronym CTC, which is not mentioned in the FN. However, the Blue PTCs are referred to as "conditional" PTC to be used only if the units are unconcealed which is the equivalent of Ole Boe's CTC in his IIFT.

No confusion here, in fact I appreciate your helpful response.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
13,616
Reaction score
8,822
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
Ah yes, the footnotes. Should have thought to look there first.
However, I don't see CTC referenced in the footnote for 7.37. It does explain the meaning behind the Blue PTC (only used for non-concealed units), which, as you point out, means the same as Ole Boe's CTC.

Thanks for the enlightenment, Robin.
I play the IIFT with CTC by default. If you use the IIFT, it is recommended to use the CTC (instead of treating CTCs as PTCs as in the original IIFT I seem to recall).

von Marwitz
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
4,418
Reaction score
2,906
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
The next time I play a (not too large) scenario using the IIFT (which is my default), I will try to write down the number of attacks where the result would have been different (taking into account any MC/TC result) with the IFT.

My bet is on a single digit number. Compare to the number of occasions where one player or another misjudges a LOS, or fails to guess what a concealed stack really is.
I did play one fine game at Albany against the magnanimous Mark Evans, years ago. He asked if I would play IIFT. I replied “Yes, i’ll Play IIFT if we also use the third ROF dice.” So it was, IIFT and ROF dice. He had the Japanese against my 3-3-7 Chinese troops. Wouldn’t ya know it, I got so many extra pin checks that he invariably seemed to fail. Everybody knows a Pin vs an attacking Japanese is about as good as it gets. In my estimation the extra pins were the deciding factor in that particular game.
 

Jwil2020

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
331
Reaction score
395
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
The footnote for 7.37 says there are "several criticisms ... against the IIFT..." Besides making it easier to strip concealment, and providing more PTC results in general, what other concerns are there? Just curious as I'm considering switching.
 

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,687
Reaction score
4,343
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The IIFT is not as incremental as it seems, and some columns show a significant jump: the "problem" it means to solve still exists.
It also encourages to fire rather than move (especially with 5 or 7 FP units which have assault fire), which often results in bad play, as ASL is mostly about maneuvering.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,386
Reaction score
4,409
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
The footnote for 7.37 says there are "several criticisms ... against the IIFT..." Besides making it easier to strip concealment, and providing more PTC results in general, what other concerns are there? Just curious as I'm considering switching.
You've stumbled into one of the longest standing debates in ASL-dom. If it feels right to you give it a go but be advised many players, especially grognards, are reticent to use, or adamant in their refusal, of the IIFT. I say give it a try to to feel it out. It may trip your trigger or sink your boat. I personally switch between either at the preference of my opponent or at a random dr determination.
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
13,616
Reaction score
8,822
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
The footnote for 7.37 says there are "several criticisms ... against the IIFT..." Besides making it easier to strip concealment, and providing more PTC results in general, what other concerns are there? Just curious as I'm considering switching.
Check the three pics (scans of the basic debate):

207062070420705

This debate has been gone through over and over in this forum ad nauseam and it comes up every now and then. With regard to the arguments, nothing has changed since the early 90's which you can read above, so if you want to save some precious time of your life, you might as well skip over all those debates you find here in this forum.

As you see above, the strongest criticism was all the extra Concealment-stripping opportunities introduced by the extra Pin results. This has been mainly addressed by the CTC (Conditional Task Check), which you only have to take if you are unconcealed. In case you are Concealed, just nothing happens on a CTC.

One thing to remember is:
If you play at tournaments, the director usually specifies the "default" (in most cases the IFT). If the default is specified as IFT and the two opponents have differing preferences, then IFT it will be. I know of no tournament that makes the use of the "IFT" mandatory and explicitely "forbids" the use of the IIFT. This would be rubbish in any case - and even if so, what would keep to players that want to do so to play the IIFT anyway?

Besides that my general impression is that the whole debate is a tempest in a tea pot. Some argue that IFT/IIFT makes all the difference in the world. Some argue the same for normal dice/precision dice. Others say that the difference is marginal compared to other factors, for example, WHEN you roll those Boxcars, the general balance of the scenario, the relative skill-level of both players, etc.

I believe that for many the IFT is simply more convenient since they have memorized it - and it's less columns to memorize than the IIFT. Others like the IIFT better simply because they can "use" every FP and don't need to drop any.

Bottom line:
I am usually sceptical of any kind of doctrinal orthodoxy into any direction. If you want to keep the fun up, your chances are increased if you keep that in mind.

Live and let live. IMHO it's 90% about personal preference and 10% about "real" differences, the latter of which are not overly relevant compared to other factors.


von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

Robin Reeve

The Swiss Moron
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,687
Reaction score
4,343
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
The only certainty about the IFT/IIFT choice is that the former is the official table and the second an official option.
No player can force his opponent to use the IIFT, as an optional rule must be agreed to by both players.
So if someone wants to stick to the IFT, his opponent must adapt.
However, as we are mostly civilized people, we reach agreements without such constraints.

There was (is?) a tourney in the Scandinavian community which made (makes?) the IIFT mandatory: which is certainly "rubbish" as much as prohibiting it.
 
Last edited:

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
13,616
Reaction score
8,822
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
There was (is?) as tourney in the Scandinavian community which made (makes?) the IIFT mandatory: which is certainly "rubbish" as much as prohibiting it.
I have never been there, but I think that at that tournament the IIFT was merely the "default" not "mandatory".
In any case, as you say, mandating either IFT or IIFT while both players involved are willing to agree otherwise is rubbish.

von Marwitz
 

Jwil2020

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
331
Reaction score
395
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
Check the three pics (scans of the basic debate):
Von Marwitz, thanks for putting in the time to respond with those two articles. I found the give and take very informative. Some points made confirmed what I had already noticed. You are right: it's probably a tempest in a teapot, and the poor horse has been given a thorough thrashing already.

Thanks again!
 
Top