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

Code One: Order Expenditure Sequence

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Jenian Katarn, May 8, 2020.

  1. Jenian Katarn

    Jenian Katarn G:Synchronized

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    53
    Hi.

    I went through the rules and I think I found a tiny hidden gem that ups quality of life of the game compared to N3. However I'm not perfectly sure if this is as special as I think it is.

    The part I'm looking for is under the point number 5. Resolution (page 23):
    And here is the gem "Check that the declared Skills meet their respective Requirements." (My own emphasis here). From this I gather that as an ARO, I can declare any skill that is defined as an ARO. The point where it is checked whether it was a valid declaration or not is done at the Resolution step. If at the Resolution step the declaration isn't valid anymore, it turns into Idle (For an example a Active model around a corner in your ZoC activates, you could declare a BS Attack against that model as an ARO, just in case if that Active model happens to round a corner with Move on latter skill declaration giving you LoF at that point, and that would make it valid declaration - however, this has a problem that I come to later - bear with me).

    The red infobox on page 22 states:
    So I think this supports my interpretation above of being able to choose any "ARO".

    However, there is then this part in the rules "Zone of Control and AROs" (page 27):
    That specifies that only skills applicable in this case are Dodge or Reset... So am I limited here to choose between just these two now? Or am I able to choose others, like that BS Attack in my example, but instead of being valid, due to the Active model not moving into LoF, the declaration would change into Idle as the case "activation within Zone of Control without LoF" can only be Dodge or Reset, hence invalid Skill defaults Idle.

    Why I'm asking this?
    Because in N3 one of the biggest pain points for me were Stealth and many wonky interactions with it AND the difference between Move + Shoot or Shoot + Move. Rules interpret them the same but in actual game table if you chose to do Shoot + Move and designated as a target a model you couldn't draw LoF from the spot on your first skill declaration (and rules stated that that declaration isn't legal at that point as there was no LoF) while planning to move on latter skill declaration coming into view (making the first Shoot valid again as you gain LoF). This basically means that there was a difference between choosing in the resolution step.

    Now that the resolving the validity of skill declaration is done in Resolution step, I think I could actually do BS Attack + Move and not feel like I'm playing against the rules (as I felt I did in N3) when doing this. I hope this part of the skill declaration wonkiness isn't carrying over to N4.

    So. Did I find a quality of life upgrade or is this just something that was already clear and cut?
    Cheers, and thank you for reading.
     
    Florian Hanke likes this.
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,566
    Likes Received:
    14,577
    I don't think you're reading that correctly. Requirements isn't the same thing as validity. This timing isn't new, it exists in N3, but there's an additional rule somewhere (on phone can't quote atm) which specify that a skill has to be valid on declaration.

    P.s. page 23. All details must be declared along with the skill, including the spot on the silhouette you are going to shoot from.
     
    #2 Mahtamori, May 8, 2020
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
    inane.imp likes this.
  3. Jenian Katarn

    Jenian Katarn G:Synchronized

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    53
    In that exact same page, on the exact same box:
    The latter part states that if during resolution step the Requirements are not met, the Trooper is consdiered to have performed Idle (for that skill). From that I understand that for example BS Attack can be declared without line of fire from the beginning position as long as it has a LoF from the position you plan to shoot from. In Resolution step all things needed for the skill are [to be] fulfilled.

    The thing here is: You havn't moved or shown the path you move, because you have declared BS Attack as first skill therefore you have to wait for possible AROs before declaring what you are planning to do next (and that is most likely Move so that you can fulfill the need to have actually been on the spot you declared you plan to BS Attack from). Naturally you DO have to specify where you are shooting from, burst value, ammo etc. as that is required. Therefore for the BS Attack to be valid later, you'd actually have to move through the spot you said you are BS Attacking from. However. If you instead decide to Discover or Idle or anything else with the second skill instead of moving, it makes your initial BS Attack declaration not meet it's requirements (LoF) hence it becomes Idle.

    Do note though, for BS Attack in Code One requirements are that you havev LoF and you are not in Silhouette contact with the enemy.

    Hmm... I think I noticed what might be confusing to me (in N2, N3 and now this might continue in Code One). Even if all skills are "simultanoeus" in narrative sense when resolving the Activation, they really are not simultaneous. If they were, then choosing Move + BS Attack shouldn't differ in declarations or resolution from BS Attack + Move. In N3 they differ and in my above example - if going as in N3 it was - I couldn't shoot anyone around a corner as I couldn't see them in initial BS Attack declaration - even when next skill is move - and the rules state that I can choose that attack to happen at any point from the movement I made. But at the declaration of first skill, I've not moved at all. Hence if I move on latter skill, I just expose myself to the enemy not being able to BS Attack - as that was illegal at the declaration time in N3. This is what has bothered me and still bothers me.

    This is why I find the opportunity to resolve the declaration's validity at the Resolution step so thrilling. I could actually do so that I plan that BS Attack first and Move later (or if I decide to do something else instead with latter skill, I just wasted my first as it becomes Idle at the resolution step). Opponents that I declared to shoot at get to ARO the model if I later move into their view and in tactical sense, they know already what I'm doing to them. I'm not saying this is the most optimal way to do things but it would just make sense rules wise and it would be in line with a whole segment in the Code One rulebook page 23: "ALL AT ONCE".
     
  4. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    I believe you are misinterpreting something that has been around for a long time. Nothing has changed as far as skill declarations and resolutions as far as I can tell. The "all at once" rule is there for effects (as there have always been cases where it simply isn't true for declarations... e.g. your move+shoot =/= shoot+move and also anything involving templates). In other words, it allows you to fall unconscious at the end of your movement, even if you got shot at the beginning of it and other things like that.
     
  5. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,306
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    You're getting the distinction wrong. When you declare a skill after having declared a movement skill, you end up having to declare where along the movement path you use the skill.

    No, you can't. There was the exact same argument when N3 came out, and we already know what the answer is: That's not what they meant.

    When you declare a skill, you have to satisfy the requirements. When you declare a BS attack, you have to see be able to see your target(s). The situations where you declare a skill and then find out that you meet the requirements later are fairly uncommon and mostly involve ZoC based skills or disguised troopers.
     
    chromedog likes this.
  6. Jenian Katarn

    Jenian Katarn G:Synchronized

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    53
    So business as usual, (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

    Thanks for answers.
    ┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
     
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Yeah, nah. That argument doesn't fly. Just because something worked some way in N3 does not imply that it works that way in Code One.

    Does anything in the Rules indicate that you need to fulfil Requirements at Skill / ARO declaration?
     
  8. Papa Bey

    Papa Bey Clueless Wonder. Still.

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,008
    Likes Received:
    969
    I believe that clause is for when you accidentally discover that you have not met the requirements. Most typically Zone of Control issues or hitting a friendly and/or neutral model.

    So how would I fire a flamethrower at an enemy model around a corner? Direct Template rules require one to place the template when the attack is declared. But I can't see them yet. At any rate the BS attack requires you to define your target and position you fire from. Which you haven't done yet... What happens if you declare an attack and then during the second order you find out you did not have the movement neccessary?

    This is supposed to be a starter style rule set. Or at least quick and easy, this seems anything but.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  9. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    You check at Resolution and determine the requirements are not met and your declaration becomes an idle.

    That's what the rules already say. They provide no guidance whether it's accidentally or intentionally flawed declarations.

    Personally I think that you need to fulfil the requirements at declaration, but can't find where that's stated (without using assumed knowledge from a previous version of the game to say that you do).
     
    #9 inane.imp, May 9, 2020
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
    CabalTrainee likes this.
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,566
    Likes Received:
    14,577
    Sticking down a template with the blast focus in base contact with the shooter's silhouette is not a requirement of BS Attack, it's a template weapon mechanism.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  11. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    You can still do that without LOF to the target (which is a Requirement so is checked at Resolution), you just can't do it from a position you haven't occupied yet (because that doesn't comply with the mechanics of DTWs).

    That's not at all difficult to play.
     
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,566
    Likes Received:
    14,577
    Well, with impact templates, the template has to be placed centred over the target's base. Again, this is not a requirement but a procedure you do while declaring the attack. I can't actually find that a Direct Template Weapon has a target anymore, so that's not actually a requirement in these rules (and unless added will make for interesting interaction with Saturation Zones, I guess...)

    What I'm saying is, it gets really damned messy if the skill declaration isn't validated on declaration, or at least declared using only known vectors and completely avoiding hypothetical situations.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  13. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Oh, I agree. But just because it's awkward doesn't mean that it's not the intent.

    Missed that DTWs don't have a target. In which case what do they have LOF to in order to meet the requirements of BS Attack?

    "Be able to draw Line of Fire (LoF) to the target of the BS Attack, unless the BS Weapon, Skill or piece of Equipment used doesn’t require LoF."

    DTWs do require LOF (which I think means that they will also require a target to meet the requirements of BS Attack).
     
    #13 inane.imp, May 9, 2020
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  14. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    This is why I was hoping they would add explicit ZoC measuring, so that you could know if you had an ARO or not. It cleans up a bunch of other ambiguities as well.
     
    CabalTrainee and Dragonstriker like this.
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,566
    Likes Received:
    14,577
    IMO, the current ZoC measuring system is not the problem and hardly different from declaring attacks with short ranged weapons. If they do go down the route of ZoC measuring, I think they need to go the whole way and remove distance guessing as a skill from the game. Partial pre-measuring can and will lead to weird daisy-chaining measurements, I've even seen that done by someone who thought ZoC pre-measuring had been allowed in FAQ.
     
    inane.imp and toadchild like this.
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Even without ZOC premeasuring, it should be explicit that during Resolution you measure the active Models' * ZOC.

    That makes it clear when and how ZOC measurement is permitted.

    * I think Model is correct in this case. //

    On topic:
    If we assume that requirements are only checked during Resolution, then what is the best way to resolve hypothetical elements of the declaration?

    This section of the BS Attack rules does seem to imply that you can declare Attacks from where the Trooper will be:

    "MOVE + BS ATTACK (OR VICE VERSA)
    Since the Skills used in an Order are simultaneous, a BS Attack can be declared at any point during the route followed by the Move Skill."

    Which then just leaves the question of "what happens when you don't reach that position?"

    The obvious answer is "the BS Attack becomes an Idle" but, yeah, the rules don't say that. So we kinda need the Resolution rules to be more expansive:

    "If any Skill, Special Skill, or piece of Equipment does not meetits Requirements, [or otherwise fails to be performed correctly], the Trooper is considered to have declared an Idle."

    If that was the rule, then I don't see any mechanical issues?
     
  17. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    I'm willing to go on-record as thinking that Infinity with full premeasuring is actually a better game than Infinity with range guessing. I know that premeasuring arguments can be contentious, but this is my personal opinion.

    I'm glad that movement now gives you permission to fully measure out what your legal range is; this is one of those cases where I very rarely encountered someone who played movement by the book and stated their route and target first, and then measured second to see how far they actually moved. The C1 rule is how most people intuitively perform movement in a miniatures game, so it's a better design.

    I think that ZoC measurement and weapon maximum range measurements are slightly different cases. The main reason I get so annoyed about ZoC guessing is that it leaves you in a limbo where you don't know if you even had a legal ARO or not. This is different than being out of range when you fire a weapon, because whether or not their first skill granted you an ARO at all has a significant mechanical impact on what the active player does for their second skill and what the reactive player's response to that might be. An out of range pistol shot is mechanically legal in a way than a 9" hacking attempt isn't.

    Concrete example time!

    1. Fusilier Angus is guarding a supply shed from the perfidious Interventor Morgana.
    2. Morgana moves around the wall of the shed, staying out of LoF and never getting closer than 8.1" to Angus.
    3. Angus knows it's really close, but decides to ARO Dodge just in case.
    4. Morgana moves again, still staying out of ZoC, but crossing Angus's LoF.
    Does Angus get to perform a dodge?

    A. Yes, because dodge is a valid ARO to the opponent entering LoF
    B. No, because dodge was declared as a ZoC ARO, which ended up being invalid. To successfully dodge, Angus would have needed to wait until after the second order and declare Dodge then.

    It ends up being the exact same problem as the speculative BS Attack ARO based on a ZoC violation.
     
    wes-o-matic and CabalTrainee like this.
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    There's no distinction between the source of an ARO in the Code One rules.

    The answer, in Code One, is that Angus is permitted to Dodge because at Resolution it was determined that Angus received an ARO and the requirements of Dodge have been met.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  19. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    Thanks, that's at least a small comfort. I guess that's one of the benefits of rolling all evasion-class skills into the dodge umbrella.
     
  20. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,306
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    You’re writing fueled by hallucinations (and FAQs for N3), the same you accused me of.
    Look at the order sequence:

    Fusilier Angus is guarding a supply shed from the perfidious Interventor Morgana.
    1. Morgana moves around the wall of the shed, staying out of LoF and never getting closer than 8.1" to Angus.
    2. Angus knows it's really close, but decides to ARO Dodge just in case.
    3. Morgana moves again, still staying out of ZoC, but crossing Angus's LoF.
    Look at the rules in ARO (on page 22). At 2, Angus’s ARO is invalid, although neither player knows it at the time, because we don’t have ZoC premeasuring. That means that the Dodge fails bullet point two of Dodge’s requirements.

    Because otherwise you reach this situation:
    I spend an order to activate a trooper out of line of sight and more than 8” of any other trooper on the table. Every reactive trooper on the table could declare Reset, so every reactive trooper has to declare an ARO now.

    The alternative is to conclude that the requirements for the skills are:
    1. Enforced when the skill is declared, if it is possible to know whether the requirement is fulfilled at that time.
    2. An uncertain requirements are enforced by paragraph three.
    and that ZoC AROs are resolved by retroactive checking (and enforcing) the ARO mechanic.
     
    wes-o-matic and toadchild like this.
  • 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