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. konuhageruke

    konuhageruke Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    734
    And it now agian has 5 pages of "discussion".
    again dissapointed.
     
    Pierzasty likes this.
  2. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Luckily, I think that my usual gaming places are very healty at the moment, but we have had "Special individuals" in the past (and I think that this happens in a lot of places, toxic persons can be around the world). But my most experience with that "use" of PBI has been in big tournaments like interplanetario and satelites (and I told that in this thread), where you are not in your usual place and you don't know what kind of people can appear.

    some people understands that part like is more a "suggestion" or "whish", than a rule itself, specially in tournaments. AFAIK, none in my usual gamin place at the moment. Some understands "sportmanlike" as "giving the most difficult and challenging game" to their opponent and wants the same from him, so "sharing" information is something to do not because makes it easier for both.

    your's is an example of what seems a good use of PBI, but I have seen PBI used other ways. Maybe, instead of thinking that the problem is only in the part that is against PBI (and only focus on some of the arguments), we could also agree that a house rule that is not written anywere is prone to be used differently depending on how the people understands it? if some people use it different, then we have a problem. But mine, is an example of a use (a bad one, I agree) that I've seen in the table and had to call the judge because my opponent was using that excuse to take back movements if I aroed with something extra of what he thought, or in hopes for me to forgot it. And because is not written anywere how to use it, and because if the intent cannot be achieved, it has to be taken back, it a way to scape from unwanted AROs.

    In my experience, new players can be as competitive as veterans. That trait is not related to beign new or not, but personal behaviour. One of the most toxic persons in my meta (a dude that lot of people had to say to the TOs "if this dude comes, take me out from the tournament" because a lot of reasons out of this debate) was a dude that had only a few months in infinity, but was highly competitive. I've seen people like that in other game communities
     
  3. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Yes, it's a real-life tactic, but not in the way it's used in Infinity - the real version involves stand back from the pivot point (the doorway, corner etc.) and moving sideways. Doing it at the pivot point exposes you too quickly, and puts you at risk of being grabbed by a hidden assailant.

    So the real-life tactic doesn't support the current discussion.
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I would argue that while nearly everyone plays with intent, there are some very crucial differences of opinion about how far that intent should be allowed to be taken and that when taken further than what the player think is fair will lead to feeling cheated. "We play with/without intent" is probably the most hollow and meaningless statement in conjunction to Infinity as either will only refer to the most extreme interpretation
     
    Andre82, Tourniquet, nazroth and 2 others like this.
  5. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    That's just a consequence of infinity abstracting cover as requiring base contact with terrain. The concept otherwise remains identical.
     
    Andre82 and the huanglong like this.
  6. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    How does it remain identical?
     
    Mahtamori and Dragonstriker like this.
  7. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    maybe a rule for, when a trooper is behind cover to get LoS from the side as the one from the roftops. That would bring the pie-slicing some people want in a more realistic way, without affecting the rules too much (just a new order, or a tweak of the already existing one).
     
  8. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Real life operators are "in cover" even though they do not tough the wall / corner with their toe?

    The "pie-slicing" terminology literally comes from CQC/MOUT terminology. It's not a game term, it's a room clearing term.
     
  9. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    Depends real life operators "can be in cover" depending a plethora of variables, including the material the cover is and the weapons ammunition, that been said, real life while good as a standard does not always factor in well into rules discussion.
     
  10. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    Technically the way it has been discussed, the tone, and language used, and the uncompromising way of discussion is what created the ban, not the debate itself and no thread so far has proven this not to be the case.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Cover =! concealment, of course, but that's beside the point. We have Saturation and Low Vis rules for concealment. The point is that "slicing the pie" is not some extreme WAAC idea like people are starting to dress it up as. It's a logical tactical choice based on geometry and limiting your exposure while engaging targets one by one, instead of all at once.

    That doesn't make it less hilarious that a game aspect and known is a "banned" topic, while the studio sleeps on fixing it, while all the time the "banned" subject is still discussed freely and nothing happens to people who do.

    This, along with the lack of actual moderation on this Forum, aside from red text finger wagging from time to time, shows that status quo is just how the company wants it to be or at the very least they do not care enough to adjust the situation.
     
  12. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    Somehow I do not believe a new player or a non competitive player would say "since there is a mathematically proven, theoretical point, I can move my model so it can only see one model (or only see model X) from the three that look at this direction I move with the intent to be in this exact position regardless of physical placement (because such placement may be too precise to be achievable in a manageable time-frame)"

    Yes, I will not disagree on the advantages of such approach, but I do not believe its a basic tactic, it is definitely an at least intermediate and in my opinion advanced tactical and theory crafting that requires the player to have skill, dedication, good (or deep) understanding of the gameplay and have a competitive mindset.

    While pie slicing is something most players will come to understand quite well after a few games and it is something the new gameplay introduction from Infinity CodeOne promotes heavily, as it should, intent is not an entry level tactical thought.
     
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Going off topic: a more simulator-esque cover would be if at least half of the target is covered and the target has LOF to (or is aware of, see: Sixth Sense) the attacker.
    (judging complex lines of fire amounts can be difficult to handle, however, and it's much easier to only have to deal with scenery close to the miniature)
    Real life operators are sometimes in worse cover when they touch the wall and slice worse when they touch the wall while Infinity operators have to touch the wall for cover. That's how it is different.
     
  14. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    Interesting. I would describe pie-slicing as a "basic tactic" in the sense that it's basic to the design and balance of the game. IMHO, it's fundamental to the way Infinity plays that, in your active turn, you can fight your opponent's AROs one at a time (unless you're already being overwatched by multiple AROs in your current position, which is a good tactic to pin down an otherwise threatening attack piece).

    I say that because, if active turn pieces had to fight multiple AROs at once, then what the active turn player could or couldn't achieve in their turn would change dramatically. The relative values of pieces, and overall game balance, would change dramatically. The way we deploy would change dramatically.

    So I would agree that pie-slicing is a "basic" part of the game, regardless of whether or not it's easy for a new player to understand. I'm glad to hear it's emphasized in the introductory video.

    That said, I've never had any trouble illustrating how it works to new players. You just put your laser line at the corner. "This is where I can see right now. As I walk towards the corner, my LoF pivots around the corner like this. See, when I reach this point the line hits unit A before it hits B or C. I'm going to walk to this point and stop, so that I only see A."
     
    meikyoushisui and nazroth like this.
  15. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    45
    Well without asking Corvus Belli whether they wanted to “increase gotcha moments” we have to go by the information provided in the rules and the rules say that LOF for AROs aren’t measured till after the first skills movements are completed, and one could assume that as this is a permissive rule set checking LOF for AROs at any other time would be forbidden. Also it not very nice of you to say that someone playing by the rules is an ass, but if you have to resort to personal attacks then I will not pay any attention to your arguments


    So what about someone revealing a TO trooper, also the fact that you would spend 5 hours on a single round clearly indicates that PBI is a crutch, also I doubt that anyone would play with you afterwards but

    By this point you have measured where the model can go, and the rules allow the use of silhouettes “To make checking LoF easier it is advised to make use of Silhouette Templates, rulers, laser pointers... to see whether anything obstructs the LoF.” If you follow the rules and specify the complete path moves by the model then you can specify the position based on that, from the rules you would say this model moves x inches along the following path rather than a nebulous I move this model just enough that B3 isn’t visible. One is specific and doesn’t need intent, the other is vague and requires information (LOF for AROs) that isn’t available at that time.

    apologies as I missed half of your post as I’m on my phone
     
    #115 Ashtroboy, May 14, 2020
    Last edited: May 14, 2020
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  16. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    As a fresh new player I've done exactly that.

    It's an absolute entry level idea for anyone who has seen a proper movie with military / SOF / SWAT type CQB action, played Call of Duty / Battlefield or did any airsoft, not to mention milsim games like ARMA.

    The phrasing would not be the hyperbole you presented, but something to the tune of "Uh, listen, I see there's a cone in which I would see this dude, but THAT dude would not see me yet. I want to move only that far, but it's hard for me to place the mini that precise and the buildings are a bit in the way. Can we agree I see only him?" is absolutely something I heard from new players and uttered myself when I was completely green.

    If there was a laser line tool on the table, the thought to use it like that is basically automatic. It's not a mystery high tier WAAC move, people.
     
    the huanglong likes this.
  17. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    45
    I think I’ve just realised what my problem with PBI is, it seems to be used primarily in the active turn to slice pies to reduce AROs, my question is how many people would be happy with the following situation.

    Model B1 is facing a corner that model A1 will want to come round, in my active turn I say that I intend to move model B2 behind B1 so that only 2mm width of its silhouette is visible from that corner when A1 tries to slice the pie. So when it’s player A’s turn they can’t see a 3*3 area of B2 and to see a 3*3 of B1 they most expose themselves to B2.

    It just feels that trying to set up AROs feels incredibly difficult with PBI and pie slicing like this but I’m incredibly new and have probably only played like 5 or so games of n3
     
  18. gregmurdock

    gregmurdock Extremely Beloved Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    490
    Likes Received:
    1,020
    I would absolutely call some kind of intent an entry level concept. This game has described itself as working together with your opponent to play. I started playing with two friends and that's what got us interested in the first place. What developed was a rudimentary intent style and when we joined the larger community we found that they played very similarly to us.
     
  19. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    I've seen people argue that this is a bridge too far. For me, personally, I've come around to thinking that it's actually probably fine because the reality is that you can only set that up for one corner... as in, it can still be sliced by simply not going that particular route. The active player still has agency in whether or not they want to use fewer orders and take both AROs or spend more to go around and slice it some other way. That said, I haven't thought too hard about it one way or another.
     
    nazroth likes this.
  20. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    That's a skillful play within the game limit. It's not about the play though. You can do that perfectly fine without PBI, it will just devolve into an argument with the opponent whether you succeed in your intention. That's the dexterity part mentioned upthread.
     
  • 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