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

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
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?
You seem like a reasonable person, I like to think I am as well. There have been very many posts, articles and write up on how much the IIFT changes things. Once again, let me state with the weight of evidence behind the fact that the IIFT does change the game and not, as you and so many others who continue to claim, by a 'little'. The effect can be very extreme when certain OoB's are involved. You have stated you 'like it', that is not something I can, or care, to argue about. Your preferences are yours and never would I judge your choices. Your comment about 'other myriad factors....", looks good on its face, but it is a misleading trap of an argument. Please understand this: those 'other factors' are in play NO MATTER THE FIRE TABLE YOU USE, the one controllable variable is the choice of fire table.
I don't think I am as a person superior to you, or you inferior to anyone else because you choose to use a different fire table than I do. (This is for those who see/cry elitism at every opportunity) However, I do think your choice of fire table fundamentally changes the game when certain OoB's are involved, it also makes for sloppy play if it encourages you to add'em up and fire(a playstyle promoted by IIFT proponents as one of their main supportive arguments)...when you should be thinking about the risk/reward of every component of your fire attack.

ASL play is above all else, a game of risk vs reward, if you remember this and learn how to apply it it will serve you well no matter the fire table you use.

(Always ask yourself, "Am I getting pot odds?".)

P.S. There comes a time when all you can do is Down the last bucket of grog, set your beard on fire, grab an axe and go charging into the darkness.
 
Last edited:

kcole4001

Stray Cat
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
455
Location
NorthEast
First name
Kevin
Country
llCanada
Have never used it, have never played anyone who asked to use it.
I may if some one eventually asks, but I'm perfectly happy with the standard table as it is.

Even if someday (pardon the pun) the tables are turned and the IIFT becomes standard, I'll still use the IFT. It's the one I'm comfortable with.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
You seem like a reasonable person, I like to think I am as well. There have been very many posts, articles and write up on how much the IIFT changes things. Once again, let me state with the weight of evidence behind the fact that the IIFT does change the game and not, as you and so many others who continue to claim, by a 'little'. The effect can be very extreme when certain OoB's are involved. You have stated you 'like it', that is not something I can, or care, to argue about. Your preferences are yours and never would I judge your choices. Your comment about 'other myriad factors....", looks good on its face, but it is a misleading trap of an argument. Please understand this: those 'other factors' are in play NO MATTER THE FIRE TABLE YOU USE, the one controllable variable is the choice of fire table.
Not true...

You can chose your opponent...
You can chose the scenario...
You can chose balance factor...
You can chose which dice to use...
You can chose what day to play...
You can chose what time to play...
You can chose where to play...

Some, none snd/or all of these might impact the outcome just as much as the FT.

Still, the ounous is on the ift'ers to prove that their claim that the IIFT effects balance. To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,070
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Still, the ounous is on the ift'ers to prove that their claim that the IIFT effects balance. To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence.
You're right of course, except for the hard mathematics and science which you chose to ignore. As for your list, once again you try indirection and deflection. Name one of those things on your list which is not applicable when using the iift. Rather than look at a single variable, you sure work awful hard to obfuscate the issue. -- jim
 

Gary Mei

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
712
Reaction score
60
Location
NJ
Country
llUnited States
Still, the ounous is on the ift'ers to prove that their claim that the IIFT effects balance. To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence.

You have a very strange definition of "ancedotal" and "hearsay". :laugh:
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
Well, I heard you say it... Doesn't that make it hearsay? :p


;)
Only if you were the source of what Gary said...this is not the case. Gary's post is there in the first person for all to see.

Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,640
Reaction score
725
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
Not true...

You can chose your opponent...
You can chose the scenario...
You can chose balance factor...
You can chose which dice to use...
You can chose what day to play...
You can chose what time to play...
You can chose where to play...

Some, none snd/or all of these might impact the outcome just as much as the FT.

Still, the ounous is on the ift'ers to prove that their claim that the IIFT effects balance. To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence.
All columns that aren't on the IFT and that upgrade lower columns to a par with higher columns (3, 3.5, 5, 7 etc) impacts play;whether it's acceptable is up to the individual.
 

jwb3

Just this guy, you know?
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
260
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Country
llUnited States
Only if you were the source of what Gary said...this is not the case. Gary's post is there in the first person for all to see.

Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
Wow, Fort, you are taking this place waaaaay too seriously...
 

Fort

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
1,509
Location
virginia
Country
llUnited States
Wow, Fort, you are taking this place waaaaay too seriously...
My lawyer, J. Noble Dagget, will contact you shortly.

Would this vicious, malicious internet attack be slander, or libel? ;)

I'm betting Libel.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
Still, the ounous is on the ift'ers to prove that their claim that the IIFT effects balance. To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence.
What part of "you have to make all the other variables equal to evaluate the fire table choice by itself" don't you understand?

When comparing the fire tables, all those choices have exactly the same effect for the purpose of the evaluation of the fire table.

Same opponent, scenario, balance factor, dice, day, time and location. All must remain equal to see what effect the table selection has on play.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
All columns that aren't on the IFT and that upgrade lower columns to a par with higher columns (3, 3.5, 5, 7 etc) impacts play;whether it's acceptable is up to the individual.
But that is comparing the IIFT to itself not the ift. The missing part is that when in use the ift player isn't satisfied with taking a bunch of 3FP shots at 2FP. Rather via tactical decisions involving stacking, maneuver and SW allocation the ift user makes sure that he is wasting the very minimum amount of FP. Thus when comparing columns one must (for example) compare the IIFT 3-3.5FP columns to the ift 4FP column. That would be an accurate comparison.

Anyway...I agree that the acceptability of either FT is a totally internal decision based very little on facts as compared to emotion.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
You have a very strange definition of "ancedotal" and "hearsay". :laugh:
No, it is the standard defintion...so far all I have seen are some individual accounts of "X" happened when I was playing such an such scenario. That falls well within the definition of "ancedotal" and/or "hearsay".

What we haven't seen is any documentation of scenario "X" played over 1000 times with variables A-thru-Z controlled. Resulting in the following range of results...etc.

Of course first one must establish a baseline balance for scenario "X" to start with...that in itself would take some documenting all on it's own.

So, as it stands...we have two claims...
1) ift'ers: The IIFT effects scenario balance.
2) IIFT'er: There is no proof that the IIFT effects scenario balance.
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
Seems this poll result is similar to the other. We have 61% of players that will use the IIFT to one degree or another.
 

RobZagnut

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2003
Messages
8,814
Reaction score
1,378
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Seems this poll result is similar to the other. We have 61% of players that will use the IIFT to one degree or another.
How is that? To quote someone who can't see the forest for the trees:

"To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence."
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
How is that?
By adding the votes for those who voted for playing IIFT to some degree.

To quote someone who can't see the forest for the trees:
Relative to the claim that the IIFT effects scenario balance...there are neither forest nor trees...just wind.

"To date no one has presented anything other than ancedotal, hearsay evidence."
Which is 100% factually correct.
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
No, it is the standard defintion...so far all I have seen are some individual accounts of "X" happened when I was playing such an such scenario. That falls well within the definition of "ancedotal" and/or "hearsay".
What about the facts of the odds changing in significant ways between columns? Far in excess, in some cases, of the increment they are meant to represent?
 

Tater

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2003
Messages
9,827
Reaction score
542
Location
Ardmore, TN
Country
llUnited States
What about the facts of the odds changing in significant ways between columns? Far in excess, in some cases, of the increment they are meant to represent?
You are still comparing the IIFT to itself...
 

pward

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
70
Location
Springfield, IL
Country
llUnited States
You are still comparing the IIFT to itself...
No, when I compare standard IFT columns, to other columns on the IIFT, I am also comparing the IIFT to the IFT.

That whole logical progression of 1:36 chance increase per column thing. Reasonable progression of increasing break checks (adding the 2MC and 2nd 2MC, then 3MC and 4MC) so that the outright KIAs are limited to the upper columns. (Oh right, that stuff goes right out the window on the IIFT.)
 
Top