Suggestion to end baits

This is really well thought out. Thanks for posting. I like your proposed solution. This is basically how most people were playing the active turn before the latest FAQ (I don't think most people played that you could declare CC out of BTB). The solution also leaves the newly introduced buffs to the reactive turn.

I would also like to add a possible fix to a part of the current baiting issue: Make DTW not require a primary target. Then they can hit whoever comes around the corner. There would still be an issue if an active turn model can come around a different corner, but I do think that is a very rare case.

[Edit] updated after re-reading OP

 

Good work on this. I'm looking at suggestion 2 in particular and thinking that if the reactive player was allowed to declare a delay-shoot in response to being prompted to take a ZOC ARO where they had no LOF at the time, but a delay-shoot meant being locked in to ONLY getting a BS attack ARO and only if it became valid after the active player's second short skill (a move into LOF), then it wouldn't be too bad.

My preference for going down this path is that it promises to be easier to understand for players that are either new or don't have the time and patience to follow all of the legal history.

Sounds like we're making progress with this problem though guys.

 

Don't forget the various Change Facing shenanigans and the sacrificial lamb baiting that also carried over to N4.

I'm positively allergic to solution 3 (the one about delayed ARO). Brings back the worst interactions from N3 and the worst game experiences.

Solution 4 (the one that is Diphoration's suggestion) I think maintains the most amount of intuition to the rules, but I am also very curious where the game will go once CB is done altering this part of the rules and what will be the outcome on skills and profiles.

 

God, you're worse than CB ;)

 

Where’s option 4:

• Recognize that there are two different classifications of requirements—those that can be known in advance and those that cannot (due to holo, Marker states, not being able to pre-measure, etc.)—and treat them as such. “Known” requirements enforced at declaration, the rest enforced at resolution.

Can you declare a BS attack with a weapon you don’t have? You violate the “known” requirement, go Idle. You declare a BS Attack and can’t see your target at the time? You violate the “known” requirement, go Idle. Declare a hacking attack against someone, hacking area is known (due to that pre-measuring), whether your target qualifies to be attacked (because it might be disguised) is resolution time.

Note: For BS Attack and CC Attack, where the attacker is attacking from should be a known requirement. (The target’s position works fine as a resolution time requirement.). CB’s never had the rules written to support the “and vice-versa” half of the “Move & BS Attack” callout.

That, as far as I can tell, is also pretty much how people expected the rules to work in N3.

 

Great work here, well done.

Personally I'd be perfectly happy with Suggestion 1, Suggestion 2, or Suggestion Diphoration.

I don't really see a problem with either the fireteam movement bait (which Suggestion Diphoration maintains), or the smoke-msv bait (which Suggestion 2 maintains).

That said, given the CB seems to be aiming at eliminating all forms of bait, Suggestion 1 would seem to best meet that goal.

Suggestion Diphoration is designed specifically to maintain the fireteam movement bait, which isn't a problem, but I'm also not sure why it would be a goal. Especially if we're getting rid of all other forms of bait, why not that one too?

 

I like Diphorations suggestion the most (can only attack from a position thats already been occupied).

Suggestions 1 and 2 are also ok.

Dislike suggestion 3 just because it's a really radical departure from how the game works now and could have some serious consequences. I just prefer a lighter touch.

 

I personally like #1 because it's simple and adheres to typical gameplay. It eliminates corner cases and doesn't have any weird rules interactions.
It's a pity that it removes some options for the players, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make :p

 

Yes, there's such an important distinction between:

1) Satisfying all obscure concerns that rules experts have about potential inconsistencies and exploits in competitive gameplay

2) Having a solution that promotes confidence amongst less experienced players so that they feel able to play the game normally and tell their friends that the infinity experience is going to be a positive one that isn't mired in rules disputes

Sounds like it isn't going to be straightforward to have both of these at once, but we're much closer to the ideal than we were a week ago. I'm feeling optimistic about this (can't wait to read this post again a couple weeks later after CB updates the FAQ again and the post has aged poorly, but at least it'll get a couple of laughs).

 

This is something that I've thought about a lot as well. I think the requirement of declaring a valid primary target is a roundabout solution to try and prevent 'cheating' intent by declaring an unreachable alleged target in order to shoot at a camouflaged troop... but it results in a lot of wonkiness when dealing with peripherals and fireteams. I think something simple would be that DTWs can target all troopers identified by any multi-trooper activation and the attack is valid if it hits at least one of them - not sure how this would affect other aspects of the game but it would prevent the issue of, say, ARO flamethrowering a corner but having the attack fail because a different peripheral than the one you identified as the target came around the corner.

 

Well thought out post, thanks

 

I think one thing needs to be said about Suggestion 1 (no skill 2 unless skill 1 is a short move skill) is that this is a system that many turn based computer games use.

The game system most closely resembling what CB seems to be going for is Frozen Synapse where the players will lock in their troopers' movements and actions, then when the turn is conducted the troopers will move at a constant pace according to the distance they were commanded to move and shoot at a place and timing specified with a computer-assisted targeting priority.
This is a system that's very difficult to handle on a gaming board where multiple simultaneity is basically impossible, but CB's system seems to want to go in that direction. The footnote is that Frozen Synapse is a bit of a connoisseur's game. It sold well enough for its indy budget to get a sequel, but it didn't smash sales like Shovel Knight.

I know that many people like to compare Infinity to XCOM: Enemy Unknown and later. This is where the similarity to suggestion 1 enters in force. While in XCOM you aren't really allowed to chain a lot of orders over a turn, you do have two skill executions and if you shoot or perform other non-movement actions your turn is (typically) over after that. Pacing in the two game systems are entirely different and XCOM can deal with line of sight in a way that a board game can not, but there's certainly some shared traits.
A footnote I'd like to add here is that XCOM allows you to perform trivial actions for free (opening or closing a door doesn't take up a precious action, moving through it results in a breaching kick) and it mostly does away with annoying stuff, partly because of the tile base system partly because it's annoying. This might even deserve its own thread...

There is a trained skill that people who are allowed to play computer games by their parents gain as they play and grow up with game where several common design choices are learned and this knowledge is carried between games. You can, and should, lean on the tutorials and learned skills that other games will have taught your audience.
Board games can use small parts of this and I think this is the strength of this suggestion or suggestions like this. I don't think the system CB is building is necessarily bad (though it feels incomplete at the moment) but it will need to do extra leg work teaching people the way of thinking about movements and sequencing because there's very few other games out there that will have taught people this knowledge.

 

Nr 1 or 4 would work for me. I prefer 4 as it allows some niche actions but nr 1 is cleaner and requires less explaining.

I also have proposal nr 5, well technically 2 of them but those are just 2 versions of similar concept with different interactions.

Either get rid completely of Main target for DTW and just declare where you put it. In reactive if there is an active model inside (or passed through) then it goes off. In active it always goes off unless there are only markers inside. A little wonky with different rules for active and reactive.

Another way is to completely move template placement and main target declaration to resolution step (note for active you would still declare from where you place it at declaration). This way DTWs are more in line with normal BS. I'm aware it creates another possibly unwanted interaction: Active trooper with template moves into lof of 2 reactive troopers. Both are in range of his templete but not at the same time. Right now reactive player knows witch is the target before aro and can react accordingly. With my proposal active player is the one with perfect information, but considering that the entire idea was to boost DTW in aro it might be fair to empower active in some fringe situations in return.

 

This is what I've got in the wording as of today for my idea.

1. Requirements be met before Declarations.
2. Valid "generic" LoF AROs are: Reset, Dodge and Attack (of any kind). Apply standard mods.
3. Valid generic AROs granted by ZoC without LoF are: Reset, Dodge and Hold ARO (just like camo, waiting for LoF). Keep ZoC premeasuring, feel free to apply a -3 Hesitation modifer for holding ARO in this sort of situation.
4. Valid Generic AROs outside of ZoC and LoF (smoke etc) are: Hold ARO. (Apply a Hesitation mod).

 

@Diphoration

Popular suggestion 3

• Requirements met at declaration.
• Create a "hold/delay" ARO option.

This suggestion requires the writing of the delaying to be VERY CAREFULY thought out. Because if you simply let the reactive player delay, it will create situations where the reactive player has the upper hand.

The delay would only need to realistically fix the kind of bait that were present in the first ruleset (the Smoke-ZoC-Bait)

I think this suggestion is deceptive though. It seems like it would be a easy fix, but the way you delay would most likely give a very advantageous, unwaranted, buff to the reactive player in circumstances where they should be penalized. Or a real mess of declaration.

I think the way the "hold/delay" would need to be worded something like this... Be a declarable skill that has an effect similar to "The user picks a skill at declaration and the ammo types, but decides all the positions at resolution". So this would force the reactive player to commit to their ARO, but could pick the modes at resolution. So they'd be commited to BS Attack, BS Attack (template) or BS Attack.



I think perhaps why you might think it was deceptive is because the other day I was playing around with it and extended the Hold into the regular LoF AROs and that's what made it seem crazy. As far as I can tell the wording I have in the comment above works fine. Plus, if it's necessary, CB can put in the "Hesitation" penalty of -3.

 

What exactly? Be specific, because as far as I can tell this fixes everything, so if I'm wrong, I'd need you to show me where/how...

Here's what it is right now https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/suggestion-to-end-baits.40852/#post-427271