1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Let's Talk About Intent in Code One

Discussion in 'Rules' started by KestrelM1, May 8, 2020.

  1. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    but that's not how some people understand PBI, and while CB doesn't clarify it, it will rema

    but that's not how some people understand/use PBI, and while CB doesn't clarify it, it will remain open to debate. Because PBI is a mindset, it depends on the person, and how they use. In several tournaments I've seen it beign used differently, from people that used it only on a few delicate situations, to people that used it to gain extra advantage.

    Well, we see difference between mandatory rules (the player is forced to do it) and suggestions. The reactive player cannot hide, but is not forced to tell beforehand. If the active player asks, then the reaktive has to answer honestly. Also, the active player should also remind him of forgotten possible ARO ("Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner") but most of the people i see use PBI doesn't apply that part. Again, missuse

    Just a comment on this. Sometimes there are communication problems and people thinks the conversation got more heated than what it really is. Just because a post is long, or two people cannot agree doesn't mean that there is a personal attack.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  2. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    At this point, we may all just be agreeing that (a) it would be helpful for CB to codify how PBI works, and (b) cheating is bad. I'm not sure anyone is arguing anymore that PBI is a bad mechanic.

    I say that because I described how I think PBI works (and judging from the other posts in this and the other thread, there seems to be general agreement on this), and you replied "but some people use it differently." So I think we're just all agreeing that those people you encountered were misplaying or misunderstanding PBI and need to be corrected by the TO as necessary. And that such would be easier if PBI was more thoroughly explained in the ruleset.
     
    meikyoushisui and RobertShepherd like this.
  3. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,261
    I am not objecting that this has been said and I would like a resolution more than anyone, if only, to have overtly enthusiastic debates spiral out of control.

    That been said it is not in my jurisdiction to deliver such a resolution and I have to wait like everybody else.

    As a side-note as far as I am aware the banning of intent discussion has not been lifted, but if involved parties are willing to behave I will allow it for as long as it remains a civil discussion.

    Personally, I do not like seeing Infinity CodeOne been impacted by the intent discussion since Infinity CodeOne is for new players (and probably not hyper competitive players) and Intent is a very complex discussion involving veteran players and many older editions, but this is only my point of view.
     
  4. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    One additional thing that Intent fixes is the ZOC ambiguity cases.
    Like this one:
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...found-to-be-ineligible-for.37165/#post-341701

    Similar for Schrödinger's ARO.
    If you're cutting it really close and don't know if you get that ZOC ARO against the first Short Skill or will only gain an ARO against the second Skill8.1" you just declare both and see which one applies.
    You're not allowed to declare the ARO against the first Short Skill if you weren't in 8". You're not going to idle because of an illegal declaration, you're not getting activated to begin with (probably in retrospect).
    You're not allowed to declare the ARO against the second Short Skill if you were in ZOC for the first Short Skill. So it's not like you get a choice and can game it anyway.

    Even worse if you have something in Hidden Deployment who might have access to Schrödinger's ARO.
    Intent helps an entire alot and then some to smooth the rough edges the game as a result of not having access to a omniscient game engine covering that part when necessary.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  5. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    559
    You are skipping an important step in play without intent. The internal debate and extra caution exercised to insure I win the debate after I move.


    I have not found that to be the case. I tend to have more luck with taking pictures using my ruler to block LoF my model would not have, it still however gets very sloppy sometimes. Even more so when things get bumped trying to verify lof.
    Anything to make this more fluid is better in my book.

    You know this is a real life firefight tactic right? Hell I do it all the time in FPS games.


    Yah. When I shoot I pop out and then back in to full cover.
     
  6. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Wait... WHAT :D

    You mean to tell me that a playstyle issue is a problem for years on end and the company has promised to fix it two years ago and still hasn't and in the meantime the "solution" was to ban discussion of the subject? :D

    [​IMG]
     
    Mask likes this.
  7. miguelbarbo84

    miguelbarbo84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2018
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    169
    Yeah, I know it :) I try to do it as well, both in FPS and airsoft, but guess it's not that easy to pull off with milimetric precision in a real life close quarters firefight, at least once stealth engagement isn't possible anymore...

    But hey, I'm not military and anyway it's just a matter of taste!
     
  8. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    And this contributes how, exactly? Especially in light of how caustic the prior threads have become?
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  9. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    132
    This is absolutely not true, and a very quick way to not have any opponents. Please tell me this is not how you or your community play? If so could the disagreements in this discussion likely just be a matter of @Armihaul playing in a toxic environment? Most of the opposition to playing with intent seems to be based around it opening opportunities for cheating or gaining some amount of unfair advantage, but as others have said that's just not the reality of it.

    I think a lot of people would even categorize what you said as cheating based on the following.



    I'm having a hard time discerning where you're trying to come from in this, so I'll just break down your entire example.

    Player A proposes his intent to move trooper A1 so that it can have LoF to B1, but not B2. No models have been moved yet.
    Player B is obligated to let Player A know that B3 would have LoF to A1 along it's proposed path before it had LoF to B1.
    If Player B hasn't noticed that B3 will have LoF, but Player A has then Player A is obligated to let Player B know about B3.

    Now that both players have established that A1 will have LoF to B3 before B1, Player A can propose his intent to move A1 just far enough to have LoF to B3 but not B1. Keep in mind, no orders have been spent, no skills have been declared and no models have been moved yet.
    Player A and Player B both agree that such a spot exists, so Player A spends an order on A1 and declares his first short skill "Move".
    With the help of Player B, Player A moves A1 to a spot where the model physically has LoF to B3, but not B1.
    Perhaps Player B lets Player A know to move backward or forward a few millimetres in order to find the correct spot.
    Now that both players have agreed on the physical location, Player B declares his ARO with B3, and Player A declares his second short skill.

    If however when Player A proposed his intent, Player B and Player A agreed that there is not an actual physical location where A1 could have LoF to B3 and not to B1, then Player A would have to either move A1 to a spot where both B3 and B1 had LoF, or change his plans.

    If Player A proposed his intent and could not come to an agreement with Player B about whether a physical location existed, then this is when you would call a TO, ask a third party, or roll off.

    Intent is not capable of making something impossible occur (IE only seeing B1 but not B3 in the above example because I simply said the magic words first).

    Intent is proposing what you intend to do, coming to an agreement with your opponent about how to do it, and then asking for their help to accomplish it in a reasonable way.
     
  10. Brother Smoke

    Brother Smoke Bureau Trimurti Representative

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Are there even still people arguing against PBI?
     
  11. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    484
    Actually, I don't think I've seen anyone truly arguing against PBI wholesale - but maybe I haven't been around long enough. A lot of the arguments seem to be about when to PBI, what to PBI, how to PBI...

    That's why I'm not tired of these discussions. Maybe a lot of it is rehash, but I actually see new stuff all the time and I find it fascinating. I don't think I've seen a game played with so many minute differences in how players interact from one community to the next. Or is it a mini game thing? (Infinity is my only true mini game, as opposed to boardgames with minis).
     
  12. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    559
    You try to do it? You make it sound like it's hard.
    Anyway just pointing out that your troops doing the same thing real life Swat do by second nature is something you find breaks your suspension of disbelief.
     
  13. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    45
    ► 1. Activation: The Active Player declares which Trooper will activate.
    ► 1.1 Order expenditure: The Active Player removes from the table, or otherwise marks as spent, the Order he uses to activate the Trooper.
    ► 1.2 Declaration of the First Skill: The Active Player declares the first Short Skill of the Order, or the Entire Order he wants to use.
    If movements are declared, the player measures where the Trooper can move, chooses the route, and places the Trooper at the final point of its movement.
    ► 2. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks Lines of Fire to the Active Trooper, and declares AROs. Troopers are not forced to declare the AROs, but if a Trooper can declare an ARO and fails to do so, the chance to declare an ARO is lost.

    and

    MOVING AND MEASURING
    You can measure Moveme
    ► 1. The player declares a Skill with the Movement Label.
    ► 2. Measure to find out which locations the Trooper could reach with
    that Skill.
    ► 3. Declare the final location, and the exact route that the Trooper is
    taking to reach it.
    ► 4. Move the Trooper to the final location.

    From what I can see of the Code One rules player B is not obligated to tell player A that B3 can see A1 as LOF for AROs isn’t checked till until step 2 of activation and A1 needs to be placed in its final position during step 1.2,.

    Also I can’t see the term Intent anywhere in the rules, there is declare which is step 3 of movement which is constrained by actual measurements. Any actual talk of positions only happens in step 3 , which is after order expenditure and skill declaration.

    So based on these simplified rules I can not see anything to PBI and to me PBI only seems possible if we don’t follow the timing structure quoted above, but am willing to be corrected if I’m missing something
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  14. miguelbarbo84

    miguelbarbo84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2018
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    169
    But do SWAT move and take the risk or do they declare intent and trust the bad guy on the left door will not shoot them back?

    :)
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  15. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    Is a SWAT team deployment a high risk life-or-death scenario or a fun tabletop game being played by people who enjoy each others' company?
     
    Mask and nazroth like this.
  16. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    132
    Everything I listed was part of the conversation that happens with an opponent before the order is even spent, not something that would interrupt the order expenditure sequence. Once that order is spent and the order expenditure sequence starts, that's another story.

    This is just commonly established etiquette, and is in the rules for N3. We can look at C1 and say it's not in there (and admittedly it's not), but do you think Corvus Belli's master plan for their game designed to entice new players was to increase "gotcha" moments? Maybe they were just hoping they didn't have to put "Don't be an ass" in the rules.

    This is less about the word "Intent" being present in the rules and more about having a conversation with and working with your opponent while playing the game. That's just the nature of infinity being collaborative.

    The reason so many people get annoyed at this discussion is because it's so pointless. Call it whatever you like, fall on whichever side of the line you think you do, everyone I've ever met plays it the same way anyway.

    If someone wants to be part of the extremely small minority that I'm not even convinced exists that wants to "gotcha" their opponent in order to win, so be it. I've expressed elsewhere how someone trying to play the game that way with me will understand the problem when we round the 5th hour of me making sure every move is as precise as I would like it to be without your help.
     
    RobertShepherd and toadchild like this.
  17. atomicfryingpan

    atomicfryingpan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    The most fun game of infinity I've played has been with chess clocks. We didnt spend a ton of time asking questions about who can see what and where. We placed our models and just reacted to what ever happened. We also didnt spend time trying to find the exact mm spot. Was a very quick and sharp game!
     
  18. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    Usually because the conversations devolve very quickly (and I'm guilty of this) and they aren't productive. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of players use intent, and the voices you see against it here are a tiny minority.

    From how this thread went, it doesn't seem like it. The one major argument against it seemed to be more against specific implementations of it, and also had a non sequitur aside about timers...

    I agree with this. Intent isn't a single ruleset, and to have a conversation about it we need to have more clear definitions about what it entails.

    "Declare the final location" in Step 3 is where intent comes in. The fact that you declare where you are going to move before placing the miniature is what leads to the necessity of intent -- to what extent can you specify "the final location"? Can you specify it with conditions rather than pointing and picking a place?* And what if the miniature does not fit in that place? What if the placement is impossible (because you have an Umbra or another mini that sticks off its base)? What if you have a physical disability that prevents you from accurately placing miniatures?

    Intent is a solution to all of those problems. It allows you to treat the physical locations of miniatures on the table as an abstraction of the actual game state as long as both players have an understanding of basic geometry and are willing to compromise on what a given position would look like to the best of their ability.

    Could you clarify what you mean when you say that PBI would change the timing structure above? Because I would definitely read that as PBI being a part of it.

    *:I didn't want to put a big parenthetical above, but consider an example in which you can provide a unique position by specifying the conditions of the position you want to be in, such that no other identical position on the table exists. For example, If I'm behind a wall, and I want to peek out and shoot your Sniper, I could declare that my final location is "The minimum distance I need to come across this wall to shoot your sniper and be seen by no other miniatures" or declare that my exact path is "The exact minimum distance to see your sniper and no other miniatures across the wall, and then back in as far as my remaining movement allows." In both of those cases, there is only a single position on the table that corresponds to them.
     
    #98 meikyoushisui, May 14, 2020
    Last edited: May 14, 2020
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  19. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    Note that in part C1 replaces the need to describe the intended final location of the model with the ability to premeasure movement range.
     
  20. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    559
    I have no idea what you mean by this......
    So pie slicing is a basic combat tactic. So simply let me ask you what are the benefits of it? You will have some big differences in real life, like the enemy moving, or the fact you don't need to be touching cover to benefit from it.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation