I see the "Catch-22" of AROs as 1) an integral part of the game and 2) an integral part of its appeal. You're the one who 1) thinks something is wrong and 2) believes you're capable of improving it. So, meu filho, have at it. As it stands, your ideas either result in a weakening of what the game is, or adding more layers of complexity. Neither of this are, in my opinion, an improvement. And I've not stated that the world doesn't keep improving wargames, but rather that 1) this isn't something that's wrong or needs improvement but rather the game functioning as designed and 2) that I doubt your ability to propose something what would be an actual improvement.
How exactly do you determine what's wrong or needs improving? Have you ever been surprised by an improvement? How do you explain improvements to things that have spanned decades? You'll have to forgive me for not thinking your assessment of where Infinity can/can't improve is accurate. The game functioning as designed is a meaningless statement. I've explained why already.
I'm going to respond to this while ignoring everything that has been written past the first post. Pardon me if this has been written before. The problem with what I read is that it removes a huge amount of agency from the active player. Since the active player is going to take two actions, it is at the very least as critical to know what you are up against as for the reactive player - if nothing else because it is possible to get attacked from multiple directions you didn't think was possible. As such, giving what is essentially unlimited Sixth Sense delay to everyone is highly problematic and difficult to work with for the active player - who is going to attack my active model? Where are they? The most common order sequence in Infinity is move->action (just like in nearly all wargames), but if you have no idea what you are declaring against... catch 22 indeed. Can I safely keep moving? Do I need to shoot at you in order to deny your Change Facing for LOF in next order? Can I push this button or will my Engineer get an arrow to the knee? It just moves the problem without solving it, but at the same time makes the problem much worse. There's a reason I'll occasionally spout such nonsense as "Sixth Sense is the most powerful skill in the game"
That`s exact opposite of how constructive discussion should proceed. Or in your words: "You`re saying your mama jokes about other forum members (highly unlikely this area of change will be an improvement for infinity)." Wow. Just wow. A few more moves from "101 guide on how to win flame war on internets" and we`ll have a full set!
(EDIT: The only relevant thing you've missed in this thread is one suggestion i made that I'll repeat below.) Fair points. So what if we could keep that agency for the active player while still giving everyone a form(limited or otherwise) of sixth sense? What if we allowed the active player to create those situations you're worried about losing for themselves? So lets replace those plays to push a button hoping the enemy just dodges with something the active players creates themselves. A Feint/Distraction skill(toss a rock away from you to turn their attention) that forces the reactive player to make a roll. If they fail, they are put into a situation the active player wants. Catch 22 or otherwise. Balance as needed. It removes the nonsense about forced useless AROs and gives the reactive player a way to challenge potential plays. All while keeping it thematically plausible.
New skills that require additional rolls would over-complicate already complicate system. I hear complains about bloated skills list all the time. Distraction skill is a good idea for RPG or RPG-like campaign where several players take control of single operatives. Currently provoke ARO is used exactly as distraction. To provoke aro player should declare noisy move by not using stealth (a lot of these troops possess stealth. So reactive player should react to distraction by guessing what kind of attack will follow and react on that basis.
@Ginrei if I were to play ball with this, I'd suggest that there is more merit to the idea about evading attack, but not as a skill. Simply put, "I'll prepare to evade" would mean you reserve your right to Change Face or Reset if you get attacked. (I specifically pick Change Face because Dodge has a movement component that might get messy to deal with, the ideal is CF with no MOD) The change here is that more powerful AROs gets barred from you and the active player can then elect to make a Move or push a button or deploy a mine or take any number of other actions that doesn't interact directly with you, but on the other hand you'll be able to defend (if feebly) against a hacking attack or a shot in the back if they do decide to attack.
Well this could work. I would add some minor negative MOD to Change Face/Reset to highlight worse-but-universal decision.
@Mahtamori , Spleen mentions above some of the issues i'd want to eliminate. We'd certainly need to pick and choose what we want to keep, which is never easy to agree on. Are you talking about permitting the delay of an ARO in specific situations as long as the options available in these situations is limited? That is certainly something i've entertained as an idea. Getting shot in the back from range is perfectly acceptable to me. You can't react to something when you don't know what's going on. Forcing normal rolls from good positioning sits well with me. I have to reject the notion that adding another roll overly complicates a game of this scale in any significant way. Especially when it comes with other changes that eliminate some strange skill combinations that are anything but intuitive. We can all create our own fluff explanations for these catch 22s and rule interactions but i think if we're honest with ourselves, they could be done better.
Just to clarify because I think my wording earlier was ambiguous, I'd like to hear your interpretation of this:
Alright, I'll give it another go. I've quoted my explanation below on why I was drawing a parallel with that article about facts. If anything is unclear just ask. If you instead wanted my opinion about what facts actually are in a more general context let me know.
@Ginrei Do you agree that it's a criticism of how people reach a consensus about truth, that people tend not to consider how our understanding of the world or ability to observe it may change in the future and instead accept the current understanding as a given? That people overestimate their knowledge?
I assume you also have issue with the delay aro when provoked by markerstate as it to can not have a effect? Anyway the aspect of the game you regard as a bug... well the only aro I can see someone forced to make that is not "realistic" would probably be the corner trick.
I agree with some of the points but not everything. Not having a catch 22 situation in some cases, such as those involving jammers or hackers, would be hard to implement in a good way, and I'm not conviced they are a problem. As several people argued it also works from a fluff perspective considering who is active and who is reactive. However there clearly are cases that are problematic such as those involving involving stealth and moving into close combat. A fluff explantion doesn't really work and it's harder to argue that it is an intended mechanic. The solution to this already exists in the rules in the form of the delay aro. If delay would be allowed against the active models that the reactive figure lacks los to the problem would be fixed. The active model does not enter los then the reactive figures aro is lost. To keep other interactions intact it would also require that the delay aro can only be used for skills that require los. Bascially any aro that could be declared instead of the delay aro can not be decleared after the delay aro when the active model enters los.
The difficulty is that you're stripping some of the agency from the Active player. Giving a skill that allows either/or could defeat the Active player's efforts if they've set up a so called "Catch-22" on the Reactive player's unit. The Active player is the one who should retain the power to make the best possible move, rather than the reactive. If I've set up a Reactive unit so it has to make the choice between a Dodge/Change Facing or a Reset, then as the Active player I should be the one who gets to choose the best option.
It's a balance between preserving a sense of "it's always your turn" ARO mechanic versus empowering the active player. In my opinion, I think any situation where you're able to completely deny the game's core mechanic, the Face to Face ARO, is a bad one*. * Not counting when target is immobilized or otherwise incapacitated, of course.
I would agree with that. Anyone ever watch No Game No Life? Awesome anime that does a great job illustrating how people make mistakes by relying on what they think they know.
Which is why many of the rule changes came into effect for N3. However, the fact that the ability to force that kind of choice was intentionally put into the game indicates it's valued. And, to be fair, it *does* require far more effort now than it did previously.
Just to look at one aspect of the rules which are trying to be "improved": zoc Aro to get into cc. Mechanically, I actually find this a good rule and it fits within how Infinity uses rules. Stealth on the other hand... Any way, the active player is sacrificing order efficiency to achieve a result. They forgo making an attack on the first order, so they can fight on cc with the second. This is similar to other things like moving to shoot in the back, or setting up smoke first. Secondly, the zoc Aro is entirely tied to the board state. The target has to be close to a corner. It has to be unsupported. The cc unit has to be out of lof from everyone, it's much like a cautious move. Cc is a niche skill and I don't see it as a bad thing to have options to reach cc at a cost. Conceptually I think is where it looks like people have a hard time. It appears that people look at it from a turn based or sequential activation perspectives, and imagine the reactive model is just literally staring at a corner waiting for the active player to round it. That's not how I see it. A turn in Infinity represents a variable amount of time, but it's in the realms of seconds. Imagine being up against a wall the sounds of a skirmish roaring around you, you don't know which way is safe and you know there are several enemies in the AO, your hear an evemy approaching the corner but they don't round it as quickly, then a wulver grunts nearby and you instinctively glance for a second. The enemy Highlander sprints around the corner, fully focused on reaching you, you pull the trigger but he's already avoided where your barrel is so a clear miss. A tussel ensues. There's levels of coordination and models being present about dangers from all angles that make sense for many of the mechanics. And yes, in the fractions of seconds available for decision making, premeditation is key. The goalkeeper analogy is perfect, with even less variables to consider, the best course of action for a goal keeper to succeed is a preemptive response. An active figure doesn't round the corner and then raise the rifle. If their second action is shoot, the rifle is already raised and firing, if you're waiting to decide if reset is a better option, you are done for.
