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. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    No, I'm saying the only time you check is at Resolution.

    A: Did Angus receive a valid ARO?
    B: Are the requirements of that ARO met?
    C: Did Angus have an opportunity to declare an ARO before he did?

    A: Yes, he had LOF to an active trooper during the order.
    B. Yes, he had LOF to an active trooper (which grants a valid ARO, which is the requirement for Dodge)
    C: No, he didn’t.

    The Dodge was valid, crack on.

    Edit:

    Nothing in that says they you can't declare an ARO before you are eligible to do so; it only says that if you are eligible for an ARO and fail to declare one then you lose the ARO for the order.

    Angus did not fail to declare an ARO. He only declared one ARO. He received a valid ARO. The requirements of his ARO were met. He's GTG!

    Edit2:

    The example where it doesn't work is as follows:

    1.2. Morgana moves outside LOF to 7.9" away from Angus
    2. Angus does not ARO because he doesn't think she's inside ZOC
    3. Morgana moves into LOF of Angus
    4. Angus declares BS Attack

    Angus failed to declare an ARO when he had the opportunity to do so; he loses his ARO. If Morgana was a 8.1" at Step 2 then his BS Attack at Step 4 would have been valid.

    Aternatively he could have BS Attacked vs Morgana at Step 2. Edit: This is not legal, see below for why.
     
    #21 inane.imp, May 9, 2020
    Last edited: May 11, 2020
    Sabin76 and toadchild like this.
  2. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    Wow...

    ...

    I did not expect this, but I think you are right. You can now preemptively declare skills (like BS Attack). Not only is it not written that you have to declare targets upon declaration of the skill (the only thing you have to declare is the weapon and ammo/mode you are using)... it's actually written into the rules that Move + BS Attack and BS Attack + Move are identical in every way. This gets rid of the Change Face shenanigans that we've had as well.

    This makes sense for someone coming into the game for the first time, but it's going to be quite a bit of a shock for those of us coming from N3. I guess the big question is, is this going into N4 as well. My guess would be "yes", just because I don't see them doing a lot of changing from C1 to N4, so much as just adding.
     
  3. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    I wouldn't get your hopes up. As @solkan has pointed out, this same question was asked at the N2-N3 transition. But, yes. It certainly appears that the rules allow pre-emptive declaration.
     
  4. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    I'm still not particularly convinced. It doesn't seem to me to be possible to make a legal BS Attack declaration including all relevant details required when there's no LoF.
     
  5. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    What details can't you describe?

    Weapon, Ammo, Target and Burst are all easy to do, and not an issue at all.

    Position is more of a problem, but only in active. Even then, it's only an issue if you fail to achieve that location. I've suggested how to resolve that (which does require some additional text).

    That's everything?
     
  6. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    It's literally impossible to declare the position on the active model's movement path where you'll shoot them when you haven't gained LoF yet. I'm mostly focused on ARO here.
     
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Good point. But the way I understand that is that you need to define where you shoot from, not where your target will be.

    I do agree "where the target is" could reasonably be included as part of "etc", and defining a valid location for that is impossible pre-emptively (or at least very difficult).

    So, yeah, on review that may prevent some* pre-emptive declarations, but the Order Expenditure Sequence itself does not. Which means that, provided you declare all relevant details, a pre-emptive declaration still appears to be legal.

    * For example, neither Dodge nor Reset include a choice that relies on the active Trooper's position: so nothing prevents you pre-emptively declaring all choices relevant to those skills. Equally, defining where the target is isn't a relevant choice for firing a DTW, so I see nothing in your argument that would prevent pre-emptively declaring a BS Attack with a DTW.

    Edit: thinking about it some more, "where the target is" is absolutely a relevant choice when declaring a BS Attack with a weapon that has a range; so no pre-emptive AROs with regular BS Attacks. Should still work with DTWs though.
     
    #27 inane.imp, May 10, 2020
    Last edited: May 10, 2020
  8. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    I didn't find what you just quoted when I went through it for my post, which is why I came to the conclusion I did. What page is that on, as it is exactly what I was looking for.
     
  9. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    A bunch of quotes; bold liberally added as my personal emphasis. Page references included.

    This is a key box on page 23:

    All details and choices related to the execution of a Short Skill, Short Movement Skill, Entire Order Skill or ARO must be specified when it is declared.

    For instance, if you declare a movement, specify the entire route; if you declare a BS Attack, specify which Weapon will be used, who the targets are, where the Trooper shoots from, how the Burst is divided, etc.

    If the Player declares a Skill and, during the Resolution step, he realizes the Requirements are not met, then the Skill is cancelled and the Trooper is considered to have performed an Idle, so they still generate AROs, and lose the ammunition or equipment used, if they declared the use of a Disposable weapon or piece of Equipment.​

    On the same page, there's a note about movement and BS ranges under All at Once:

    For example, if an activated Trooper declares Move + BS Attack and chooses to shoot from its starting position (to take advantage of a favorable Range), and its target reacts with a BS Attack, choosing to shoot at the end of the Movement (again, for Range purposes), then both actions are still considered to be simultaneous for all game purposes.​

    Together, these indicate to me that both parties need to pick single points along the active model's trajectory to measure to and from. However, we do seem to be missing an explicit statement that you're allowed to shoot anywhere in the active model's declared route.

    Page 43, BS Attack Effects box precludes you from declaring a BS attack against a target out of LoF:

    If the target is in Total Cover, the attacker may not declare a BS Attack with Weapons, Special Skills, or Equipment, that requires LoF.​
     
    Sabin76 and inane.imp like this.
  10. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Nice! That clears it up for BS Attack. You can't declare a BS Attack vs a target in Total Cover.

    Now the real question is whether this is simply reflective of a general principle (you can't declare skills/AROs the requirements of which have not been met) or a specific restriction because of how BS Attack works.

    At the moment I tend to the later.
     
  11. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    994
    ...seriously.

    This whole discussion is bonkers, and while I get that it may be relevant for certain folks, I definitely will be playing in friendly games with a house rule that it's permissible to measure ZoC for any models reasonably close to the active trooper during steps 2 and 4 of the Order Expenditure Sequence.

    Because "I don't know if I get an ARO or not because I'm allowed to check LoF with my eyeballs, but not measure ZoC with a ruler" is IDIOTIC. Sorry, but the fact that you can't already do this is one of the most infuriating things about Infinity for me.

    I get not pre-measuring everything, and that it can bog the game down and removes tension by making everything about optimal moves and shots, and the uncertainty makes sense when determining the outcome of a skill. But having to guess whether you might or might not have a ZoC ARO is absurd, particularly if it's the case that the intent of RAW is that you guess if you have a ZoC ARO, then are granted a LoF ARO that's more certain, but you can't use the latter since you already declared the former, and then the former becomes an idle because your best guess for distance was off by a fraction of an inch.

    Negative play experience? Check. Annoying and confusing for new players? Check. Counterintuitive? Check. Encourages decision paralysis for new players? Check. This does not belong in C1.

    That doesn't even touch on the N3 problem of Schrodinger's Hackable ARO, where your hacker may be able to ARO a hackable enemy, and whether that enemy is hackable or not is Open Information as soon as they enter your ZoC, but neither player is allowed to measure to see if that's the case, even though AROs must be declared. It can be played through, but the logic involved is tortured AF. And it's worse when the active unit is using a skill like holoprojector.

    I do not see the upside of barring players from checking ZoC in ARO and relying on good sportsmanship to keep it reasonable, when there are so many other parts of the rules that depend entirely on good sportsmanship to keep the game playable at all.

    If you must have a game mechanic to rein things in, maybe something like "If you measure ZoC for ARO and the distance is greater than 12 inches, all AROs for the current Order are considered Idles." Or maybe just "the ARO is considered an Idle for the model whose ZoC is being measured," but that would still permit for "sacrificial" measurements like using a model around the corner to sneak a measurement that shouldn't be relevant to the current Order.
     
    Jonas, CabalTrainee, Berjiz and 2 others like this.
  12. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    The way I see it is that measuring ZoC is akin to measuring range for weapons... it's just that the consequences are far more severe in the former case if you guess wrong. There is also the point that was brought up earlier that an 8" measurement is, by far, the most meaningful range in the game (range bands are in multiples of 8", move+move orders are mostly 8", etc.).

    I don't know what the solution is, but I agree that if ZoC turns into something that can be pre-measured, you might as well just allow total pre-measuring.
     
  13. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    7,847
    I think it's worth pointing out that almost all major minis wargames have gone to allowing some form of premeasuring these days except Infinity.
     
    CabalTrainee likes this.
  14. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    994
    I'm not sure I agree, and it has to do with the fact you can check LoF pretty much whenever, for practical purposes.

    For most weapons, measuring range is more about determining what modifiers will apply to your roll; most weapon ranges max out at either 24" (half the length of the board, this is pretty much pistols and shotguns) or 48" (board length) or higher. The only other categories are grenades at 16" or thrown melee weapons at 8". Most weapons can potentially hit almost anyone on the board, albeit at a possible penalty, as long as you can see your target, and most of the weapons that can't do that have a range that's easier to eyeball since it's half the board width.

    So for most BS Attacks, you can know whether you're allowed to declare the attack before you do so by glancing across and checking to make sure you have LoF; it's the accuracy that's unclear at declaration.

    So far I haven't had the experience of a player declaring BS Attack and a target, checking LoF, and then realizing they don't have LoF and idling. "Dang, I thought you were out of cover but you're not," yes. "Well, I thought I had a better range band here, but I don't," also. But no "Oops, guess I idle."

    By that standard, I would argue that checking ZoC for AROs is a lot closer to checking LoF than it is to measuring weapon range, because if you aren't within ZoC you may not have an ARO to declare in the first place.

    Perhaps it would be better to simply rule it this way:

    At any point during the Order Expenditure Sequence, either player may measure the Zone of Control of the active trooper.

    The rationale there is that it keeps the reactive player from misusing ZoC measurements from an assortment of models placed wherever, lets the reactive player confirm whether or not ZoC ARO opportunities occur along the movement path, and if that makes it easier for the active player to avoid entering ZoC or stay outside the 8" range bands of enemy units, fine. Apparently a lot of players are good enough at eyeballing distances to do this already without a ruler, and an enemy could Dodge closer to get within 8" for their next ARO if that really matters, so scooting along just outside ZoC with limited pre-measuring may not be that impactful. If it clarifies gameplay, that seems worth it to me.
     
  15. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    What I meant is that it's measuring a distance, just like measuring range. I didn't mean to give the impression that a ZoC range measurement is the same as a BS attack range measurement in terms of impact.

    I do get your point about it being more like a LoF measurement in it's impacts, and I agree. It's just that once you have some form of pre-measuring a range (any range) that can then be used to easily extrapolate other ranges, you might as well allow all ranges to be measured.

    I want to be clear... I'm not exactly against the idea. I just think that pre-measuring distances has been purposely left out for a reason (that only CB knows), and that adding in one form without others makes even less sense than allowing none.
     
    wes-o-matic and toadchild like this.
  16. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    994
    I mean, if we want to get finicky there are always measuring devices on the table during a game....

    Bases! A standard 25mm base is 1", a 40mm base is about 1.5" across, and a 55mm base is just over 2" across. If the concern is that you can use a single 8" measurement from one base toward a given model as a way to extrapolate range bands anywhere on the table, a large remote/motorcycle base has the same relationship to 8" as a ZoC measurement does to a 32" range band.

    The table itself! The fact that the table has constrained, square dimensions means that you can approximate pre-measuring LoF through that kind of simple geometry, and there's a significant margin for error but not so significant that you'd be off by more than 8 inches once you get the hang of it. I'm still in the "getting the hang of it" stage but I haven't played that many games and so far it doesn't seem difficult.

    I've eyeballed 8" increments by remembering that they're 1/6 of the 48" play area sides, or that each quadrant of the table can be subdivided evenly into a 3x3 grid of 8" squares. So a model in the center of a given table quadrant can probably catch enemies in that quadrant in the 8-16" range band, and sniper rifles want at least 1/3 of the table side length between them and their target.

    And that's all in N3. This is the Code One forums, baby. :)

    Reminder: In Code One, we get to pre-measure movement, so the active turn player is already breaking out a ruler that's presumably at least 8" long. That horse done left the barn already. :D
     
    #36 wes-o-matic, May 14, 2020
    Last edited: May 14, 2020
    Jonas likes this.
  17. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    994
    Although, thinking about it, there may be a stronger argument based on the concept of Open Information. It goes like so:

    Per the wiki (read the blue box), Lines of Fire are Open Information. The content of the blue box encourages players to freely share whether LoF exists as part of determining whether an Order depending on LoF can be declared, so that the declaring player can avoid declaring a skill that becomes an Idle due to lack of LoF. This facilitates validating AROs and Skills at the time of declaration.

    When movement is declared, the path and end destination are also declared, becoming Open Information. In Code One, this includes pre-measuring, which simplifies play and removes the ambiguity about whether the declared path is too long. AROs are highly dependent on the path of movement to determine whether they are valid, and the measurement and declaration of movement paths creates Open Information that facilitates validating AROs at the time of declaration.

    Presumably, the Zone of Control of a model is Open Information; if LoF is Open Info, and ZoC is a known, fixed value, I can't imagine that it would be anything but Open Information.Therefore, the answer to the question "Is trooper A in ZoC of trooper B?" should be implicitly Open Information, in the same manner that "Is there valid LoF between troopers A and B?" has an answer that is Open Information.

    Therefore, for the express purpose of validating AROs and skills at the time of declaration, players should be allowed to answer the question "Is trooper A in ZoC of trooper B?"

    The precise mechanism for answering that question is a sticking point, but players should f$#%ing well be allowed to answer it in a timely fashion that facilitates fair gameplay. I will die on this stupid hill, apparently.

    My vote's to allow players to measure the ZoC of the active trooper along the declared path of movement, at the time the movement path is declared. Since everybody has an 8" ZoC, being in an enemy ZoC is reciprocal. And in Code One the active player is already breaking out a ruler to pre-measure, so the cat's out of the bag as far as not permitting any measurements until later in the Order Expenditure Sequence anyway.

    Granted that this rationale is based in part on text from the N3 wiki rules, but Line of Fire hasn't exactly changed enormously from N3 to C1, and the main difference to movement for this purpose is the addition of pre-measuring. So I stand by it, even if it does reference N3 material. :p
     
    #37 wes-o-matic, May 14, 2020
    Last edited: May 14, 2020
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    7,156
    Can we not quote Infinity rules in a discussion about Code One. And can we also keep discussions about whether LOF is Open Information in Code One to the intent thread.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  19. ijw

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

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    14,620
    Apart from inane.imp's point about trying to keep the discussions separate, the N3 Gaming Etiquette box does not exist in CodeOne, as it's been replaced by the Fair Play box on p23.
     
  20. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,566
    Likes Received:
    14,577
    In my view, there are two reasons to bar pre-measuring;
    1. It gets too easy to determine Zone of Control, which is where the nastiest stuff happens. That's where hacking happens, that's when melee starts being a thing, that's where shotguns start completely dominating, etc.
    2. It gets too easy to measure distances to objects and between objects which strongly reduces order inefficiency and contributes to analysis paralysis information overflow.

    Further in my opinion there are three ways to handle this:
    1. Suck it up. Anything ZoC related is a range band and if you declare it wrong you "miss the shot because out of range"
    2. Allow pre-measuring between troopers only, shortest distance only and up to 8" only.
    3. Full pre-measuring. Tactical satellites feed this info to each troopers' ComLog anyway.

    There's one wrong way to do it:
    1. Measuring any point of the Zone of Control that's not directly relevant to the order sequence at any point in the order. (When pre-measuring is not allowed)

    As a small note; CodeOne does not have pre-measuring, please get that out of your system. You're not allowed to declare a Move and measure any distance other than your movement. If you measure bird's flight distance you're doing it wrong. If you stick the ruler down so that it extends beyond the potential end-point you're doing it wrong. If you measure prior to activating your trooper you're doing it wrong.
    Most preferable is to make a few cords that are 2", 3", 4", 6", 8", and 10" long instead of using stiff ruler sticks or tape measures for movement, IMO
     
    Sabin76 and inane.imp 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