When you play, how often do you use the IIFT?

How many of your games use the IIFT?

  • None - Almost never use it.

    Votes: 105 41.2%
  • 0-10%

    Votes: 31 12.2%
  • 11-20%

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • 21-30%

    Votes: 5 2.0%
  • 31-40%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 41-50%

    Votes: 6 2.4%
  • 51-60%

    Votes: 4 1.6%
  • 61-70%

    Votes: 7 2.7%
  • 71-80%

    Votes: 13 5.1%
  • 81-90%

    Votes: 16 6.3%
  • 91-100%

    Votes: 63 24.7%

  • Total voters
    255

Kevin Kenneally

Elder Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
17,798
Reaction score
591
Location
Central Texas USA.
Country
llUnited States
It plays a lot faster when you don't even have to crack open the table to determine the result. Fewer columns means you only have to remember a few more common results.

8 on the 8 is a normal and work your way from there. Look up the low FP shots if you rolled under a 7, or any shot that rolls 2 or 3 to make sure you have the right degree of K/# vs KIA... or any high FP shot that's a rare occurrence.
Pward?

What plays a lot faster?

You and "Mr. Tally-whacker"?

IFT or IIFT HA......:clown:

Just roll the DR and we'll figure it out from there....... :freak:
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
378
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
SAM,


I thought you were a "straight up kinda guy".....:)

Now,

I see you have become one of "THEM"......:angry: :(


Polls are for politicians and ....... :crosseye:


Hey,

Saw an article in USA Today about Microsoft sending 'extra' serverance pay. Were you one of the "lucky ones"?

PS. I REFUSE to answer this poll on grounds I may violate my Miranda rights...... :p
I use the IFT, does that make me one of "them"?

And I left Microsoft nine years ago. No severance from them. My last employer dumped me in November - just before the holidays. No severance and I'm still looking for work. :angry:
 

iamspamus

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
20
Location
Sawtry, UK
Country
llUnited States
But, you don't have to do that...

Another thing that is overlooked in the flame wars is that there are lots of "game" reasons to hold your fire on the LMG - regardless of what fire table you are using.
Like what?

However, what I was curious about was just how many of the games played actually USED the IIFT. It appears that slightly more than 25% of the games played use the IIFT. (Looking at the number of people who always or "almost always" use it.)

This is about what one could expect if about 50% of the players preferred the IIFT. (As was shown in another poll). (It would only be about 25% because that's how often two randomly selected players would both prefer the IIFT.)
Nope. Flawed numbers. Look on the iIFT vs. IFT thread. There are a good number of guys who say that they will never use the iIFT. Fine say it's 25-30%. There are also about 15-20% who say that they prefer the IFT, but will play the iIFT if asked. Then another 15-20% who prefer the iIFT but will play either. Finally, there are the 25-30% who "only" play the iIFT.

Therefore, one could only say that 25-30% of the games are played EXCLUSIVELY with the IFT. Any other numbers are subjective. Many said that their group only plays the iIFT, though only some of these go to tourneys (where they would be "forced" to use the Ift). So, I believe that your numbers are off.

Also, some poster in the past (forget who) said that "I've never been asked to play a tourney scenario with the iIFT". They used that to justify either "good players" use only the IFT or "no one really uses the IFT". I forget which. But, if the reaction to the mere suggestion of the iIFT is so hostile AND the culture is to only use the IFT at a tournament, then my question is "Why would they ask?"
 

iamspamus

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
20
Location
Sawtry, UK
Country
llUnited States
It plays a lot faster when you don't even have to crack open the table to determine the result. Fewer columns means you only have to remember a few more common results.

8 on the 8 is a normal and work your way from there. Look up the low FP shots if you rolled under a 7, or any shot that rolls 2 or 3 to make sure you have the right degree of K/# vs KIA... or any high FP shot that's a rare occurrence.

Sorry, this is the most lame excuse so far. It's easier and I don't wanna relearn something. I guess you didn't learn the "new" WA or even buy the second rulebook, huh?

I get the idea that the IFT is official. Check. I get the idea that you've done it for a while. Check. I get the idea that you think that the iIFT is flawed. Check. I don't get the big deal if I want to use an official variant when I play someone else...No check for you...:argh:
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
900
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
I get the idea that the IFT is official. Check. I get the idea that you've done it for a while. Check. I get the idea that you think that the iIFT is flawed. Check. I don't get the big deal if I want to use an official variant when I play someone else...No check for you...:argh:
I don't see anywhere in Pward's post where he says it's a big deal if you want to use the IIFT when you play....You are almost as good as Montagu at reading a persons intent.

And one reason to not use the LMG on a fire attack is when it would be a sustained fire (or even a normal shot) and the chance of breaking it is greater than the chance of gaining an effect on the enemy by using the LMG v not using it.
 

iamspamus

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
20
Location
Sawtry, UK
Country
llUnited States
I don't see anywhere in Pward's post where he says it's a big deal if you want to use the IIFT when you play....You are almost as good as Montagu at reading a persons intent.

And one reason to not use the LMG on a fire attack is when it would be a sustained fire (or even a normal shot) and the chance of breaking it is greater than the chance of gaining an effect on the enemy by using the LMG v not using it.
Really? Here is his signature for you:
The IIFT is broken at it's core.
Trying to squeeze results in between IFT columns fails because the 2D6 results have no halves, thirds, quarters or sixths to make it truly "Incremental".

Sounds pretty anti-iIFT to me. Maybe I’m “mis-reading” it. BTW: I am fine with him having that view, but I don’t want to be told that my way is dumb jsut because it's different AND an official variant. My opponent and I get to pick the table that we want to use.

In addition, how do you "know me" well enough to define me based on one or two emails? Defining me as an empathe or "intent reader" as such, rather than a rational responder to what I saw/read is an attempt to negate my argument or view, without confronting the argument itself.

I have read the 80+ pages of the iIFT vs the IFT, plus the other 5 or 6 threads on this topic. (as we all have) Do you really want me to go through and find virulent anti-iIFT comments and post them here to "prove" this sentiment (that they are not just my "feelings") to you? I am not sure that I want to take the time, though that doesn't make what I said less true.

If, in this instance Pward did not say this or if he was specifically not putting forth this philosophy, then I apologize. (Though I think that this is the point of his signature.) My point is still valid, however. Those who are anti-iIFT, are extensively so, even hostile. There are a few who are as zealous for the iIFT (you know who they are), but when push comes to shove the iIFTer's have to play the IFT, if requested. This puts those who prefer the iIFT at a disadvantage...which is fine. I’m just trying to say, that I like the iIFT. I play the IFT (when I have to) and I’m ok with that.


So, I don't want to get confrontational with you, but I was responding to his sig. I could care less if you use the IFT or iIFT or whatever. If I ever play you, I'm good with either.

And thanks for the answer. I really didn't know why one would hold fire with an MG.
 

custardpie

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
6,331
Reaction score
535
Location
Nottingham
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And thanks for the answer. I really didn't know why one would hold fire with an MG.
Other reasons for holding fire would be to use against further movement by other units, FP2 or 3 -2 mod can be a real put off, especially if the first shot broke or pinned the first unit in the open.

ability to spray fire in adjacent hex's against units already adjacent


not fixing covered arc at a disavantage.

Sure other reasons could be out there.


I don't mind using IIFT but would have issues with an opponent jumping from one to other based on which units are in play, far too gamey for me, not that I have experianced this yet.

Cheers
Ian
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,605
Reaction score
362
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
...To answer this thread's question, I've used the IIFT ever since it was first published in the 1989 ASL Annual. It is big and unwieldy... but the game just plays so smoothly when you don't have to constantly shuffle units & SWs around to try to match your FP totals to the IFT columns.
Trying to recapture some control of the game that ASL specifically tries to take away...:cool:
 

sswann

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
243
Location
Lost in Mississippi
Country
llUnited States
Cannot vote... Category missing.
To me it does not matter. You would have to check with my opponents as I will use which ever they prefer.
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
378
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
Cannot vote... Category missing.
To me it does not matter. You would have to check with my opponents as I will use which ever they prefer.
So, Steve.... What percentage of your opponents prefer the IIFT? The question wasn't about whether the choice mattered to you, but how often you use the tables. :smoke:
 

sswann

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
243
Location
Lost in Mississippi
Country
llUnited States
So, Steve.... What percentage of your opponents prefer the IIFT? The question wasn't about whether the choice mattered to you, but how often you use the tables. :smoke:
I would guess some where in the 40-45% range for IIFT
 

SamB

Shut up and play!
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
6,792
Reaction score
378
Location
Seattle, Washington,
Country
llUnited States
But, if the reaction to the mere suggestion of the iIFT is so hostile AND the culture is to only use the IFT at a tournament, then my question is "Why would they ask?"
I have never reacted in a "hostile" way (nor seen / heard a hostile reaction) at a tourney (or anywhere else) to a suggestion that the IIFT be used.

I have been asked at a tourney to use the IIFT and I have politely stated that my preference is the IFT.

BTW, it makes no difference at all to me (or anyone else who prefers the IFT, for that matter) if you "consenting adults" use another table. The only place I've seen anthing like hostility is on the internet. It seems to be a result of people on both sides trying to convince themselves and others that they are right.

This thread was simply asking for a percentage of games that are actually played using the IIFT vs the IFT. It asked nothing of your preferences nor of your belief as to which table was "better" or "more enjoyable".
 

iamspamus

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
20
Location
Sawtry, UK
Country
llUnited States
Other reasons for holding fire would be to use against further movement by other units, FP2 or 3 -2 mod can be a real put off, especially if the first shot broke or pinned the first unit in the open.

ability to spray fire in adjacent hex's against units already adjacent


not fixing covered arc at a disavantage.

Sure other reasons could be out there.


I don't mind using IIFT but would have issues with an opponent jumping from one to other based on which units are in play, far too gamey for me, not that I have experianced this yet.

Cheers
Ian
Thanks, for other examples. I figured there were some, I just couldn't think of any.

And I'd play the iIFT any time, unless my opponent doesn't want to do so. I do agree about not skipping back and forth based on squads and such.
 

iamspamus

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
20
Location
Sawtry, UK
Country
llUnited States
But, if the reaction to the mere suggestion of the iIFT is so hostile AND the culture is to only use the IFT at a tournament, then my question is "Why would they ask?"
I have never reacted in a "hostile" way (nor seen / heard a hostile reaction) at a tourney (or anywhere else) to a suggestion that the IIFT be used.

I have been asked at a tourney to use the IIFT and I have politely stated that my preference is the IFT.

BTW, it makes no difference at all to me (or anyone else who prefers the IFT, for that matter) if you "consenting adults" use another table. The only place I've seen anthing like hostility is on the internet. It seems to be a result of people on both sides trying to convince themselves and others that they are right.

This thread was simply asking for a percentage of games that are actually played using the IIFT vs the IFT. It asked nothing of your preferences nor of your belief as to which table was "better" or "more enjoyable".
Cool. If the shoe doesn't fit, then I applaud you not wearing it. :devious: I agree with the sentiment about internet conversations being more aggressive than ftf. In fact, when I started again recently, we were using the IFT.

I like the saying on your avatar, "Shut up and play." Good motto. That's what I'd like to be doing right now...rather than sitting at work. Grrrr.
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
900
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
Sounds pretty anti-iIFT to me. Maybe I’m “mis-reading” it. BTW: I am fine with him having that view, but I don’t want to be told that my way is dumb jsut because it's different AND an official variant. My opponent and I get to pick the table that we want to use.
Pward and many others have said time and again, that they do not care one bit what table you choose to use, that is your decision and yours alone (with opponent agreement). Your post was contrary to that and accusatory in nature, with the only basis...your own reading of his unspoken intent.

[/QUOTE]In addition, how do you "know me" well enough to define me based on one or two emails? Defining me as an empathe or "intent reader" as such, rather than a rational responder to what I saw/read is an attempt to negate my argument or view, without confronting the argument itself.[/QUOTE]

I don't know you, I can only speak to the exact words you used to attribute Pward with intent that was not spoken. And as to confronting the argument...pward and others have printed volumes on the IFT v IIFt debate. AS WELL AS having no intent to force you or anyone else to use one table over the other in private play. Your view that you can play whatever table you want in private is sacrosanct as far as i am concerned. Your reasoning that the tables are fundamentally equal is very wrong...and can be proven, as it has over and over again. You can continue to ignore the evidence presented, i'm fine with that, but slinging aspersions to attempt to discredit Pward's work and inserting assumptions is not something I'll let slip past.

[/QUOTE]I have read the 80+ pages of the iIFT vs the IFT, plus the other 5 or 6 threads on this topic. (as we all have) Do you really want me to go through and find virulent anti-iIFT comments and post them here to "prove" this sentiment (that they are not just my "feelings") to you? I am not sure that I want to take the time, though that doesn't make what I said less true.[/QUOTE]

knock yourself out, but it's all in the eye of the beholder as to intent...the logic and math are true no matter. If one chooses to see/read/feel hostility where it's not intended that's on the reader.

[/QUOTE]If, in this instance Pward did not say this or if he was specifically not putting forth this philosophy, then I apologize. (Though I think that this is the point of his signature.) My point is still valid, however. Those who are anti-iIFT, are extensively so, even hostile. There are a few who are as zealous for the iIFT (you know who they are), but when push comes to shove the iIFTer's have to play the IFT, if requested. This puts those who prefer the iIFT at a disadvantage...which is fine. I’m just trying to say, that I like the iIFT. I play the IFT (when I have to) and I’m ok with that. [/QUOTE]

Again you're reading intent where none (I can only speak for myself) is intended. You play the table you want between yourself and others, i will always be ok with that.



[/QUOTE]And thanks for the answer. I really didn't know why one would hold fire with an MG.[/QUOTE]

You're welcome. :)
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
96
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Sorry, this is the most lame excuse so far. It's easier and I don't wanna relearn something. I guess you didn't learn the "new" WA or even buy the second rulebook, huh?

I get the idea that the IFT is official. Check. I get the idea that you've done it for a while. Check. I get the idea that you think that the iIFT is flawed. Check. I don't get the big deal if I want to use an official variant when I play someone else...No check for you...:argh:
When did I say I don't want to learn something new. I don't want to have to memorize an additional 12 or so charts in the middle where most shots occur.

If you are willing to use a balance altering fire table, so be it. But please admit that some scenarios are affected (effected?) more than others and you might just as well be giving your opponent an advantage he doesn't deserve. Or you might be taking advantage of the fire table yourself.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the IIFT was published to cave into player demand when it wasn't really necessary.

If you must have a printed column for every FP, use the EIFT. I guarantee it doesn't change game effects from the IFT.

If you demand a benefit for those additional FP, then find some table that doesn't create sweet spots for some nationalities right out of the box.

Maybe you will answer these when tate dodges the question.

Would you play with a -1 DRM for all of your opponents shots?
How about a +1FP per MMC/SW for each shot?
Either question at a reduced rate, 1/2 1/3 etc.; where is your "acceptable" breakpoint?

And to be completely honest, the IIFT is a big deal. It develops two different camps within the game. Division is not a good thing in a community.
 

Gary Mei

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
712
Reaction score
60
Location
NJ
Country
llUnited States
As of right now, there are exactly 100 respondents in the poll.

Code:
Bracket	Count	Midpoint	Weighted Average
None 	39	0	0
0-10%	17	0.05	0.85
11-20%	1	0.15	0.15
21-30%	3	0.25	0.75
31-40%	0	0.35	0
41-50%	3	0.45	1.35
51-60%	2	0.55	1.1
61-70%	3	0.65	1.95
71-80%	2	0.75	1.5
81-90%	8	0.85	6.8
91-100%	22	0.95	20.9
Total	100		35.35
If you assume the midpoint of each bracket as the percentage of games each player plays (45% if a player says he plays 41-50% of the games using IIFT), then a weighted average of the results indicates that about 35% of ASL games are played with IIFT.

This is obviously not a rigorous mathematical study, but I think it provides some useful information.

I would think the numbers at a tournament are much less than this however...
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,056
Reaction score
96
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Really? Here is his signature for you:
The IIFT is broken at it's core.
Trying to squeeze results in between IFT columns fails because the 2D6 results have no halves, thirds, quarters or sixths to make it truly "Incremental".

Sounds pretty anti-iIFT to me. Maybe I’m “mis-reading” it. BTW: I am fine with him having that view, but I don’t want to be told that my way is dumb just because it's different AND an official variant. My opponent and I get to pick the table that we want to use.
You do have your personal freedom to choose a broken table. From a game mechanic standpoint the IIFT unfairly grants additional firepower effectiveness to some columns over their fixed IFT neighbors. Or slights other new columns on the IIFT to keep with some "progression" ideal that can't fit on 2d6.

It's broken because it kept the 2d6 method to determine the random outcome. There are only 36 possibilities total, and since it's the sum of 2d6 that means 11 final results on the dice. It makes for a nice stair step "bell curve" of results, but it doesn't allow for expansion.

It should never have become an official variant.

I've tried to work out variations that function properly with 3d6 and 2d12, and they just don't scale between the fixed IFT columns. A 2d18 system might scale properly, but the table would need to be HASL mapsheet sized to work. That and you would have to find someone willing to produce d18 for a niche wargame market.
 

iamspamus

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
688
Reaction score
20
Location
Sawtry, UK
Country
llUnited States
Fort, I never said that the different chart (iIFT vs the IFT) doesn't change anything. It does ... a little. I said that I don't mind that change. In fact, I like it. As Tater said in the other thread, I think that a myriad of other factors also affect the balance or outcome. I have no problem (yet) with the changes from using the iIFT. I don't care if I'm the 747 Amis or the 436 Germies. I just like the chart better. That could change, who knows?
 
Top