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. KestrelM1

    KestrelM1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    216
    Likes Received:
    441
    I'll keep this simple.

    Fusilier Angus is activated with an Order. Around the corner are 3 dastardly Zhanshi, A, B, and C, who await his approach. Angus declares his first short skill: Move, and measures his 4" move, which is more than sufficient to advance around the corner into LoF of all three Zhanshi. However, Angus does not want to confront all three at once, so he declares his exact route and final location: he will move forward along the wall and stop when he can see only Zhanshi A.

    Is this a legal Move declaration? Why or why not?

    SlicingThePie.png
     
  2. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    Same answer I always give - this is mostly a question of etiquette and convention, not rules.
     
    jfunkd, Rizzy, Xeurian and 3 others like this.
  3. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,992
    Likes Received:
    7,072
    Nothing has changed from the previous discussion.
     
    #3 inane.imp, May 8, 2020
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    We could also not talk intent?

    In either case, I think your example is lacking because it's very easy to slice that manually. Try these;

    Slice vert rear.JPG Slice vert side.JPG

    This Haidao MSR needs to move forward 0.6" to see the rear Keisotsu, 0.7" to see the second one and about 1.2" for the closest. Noting also that if the rear Keisotsu had stood back about 0.3" to its right, the Haidao would need to expose itself more to gain LOF through reciprocal LOF and thus not be able to slice it from the middle Keisotsu, possibly. Depending on how the argument goes.

    What I find most annoying about this debate is that in practice it is the person to says most details and is most willing to express their difficult-to-attain wishes is the player who benefits from these knife-edge situations, while playing nice and avoiding situations where slicing through conversation is required puts me at a distinct disadvantage :(
     
    Berjiz and Dragonstriker like this.
  5. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    997
    Likes Received:
    2,538
    Ain't pre-measurment of movement now a thing?
     
  6. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    Yes, but milimeter-precise placement (in extreme cases) is still physically difficult to attain.
     
  7. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    997
    Likes Received:
    2,538
    Let's say an opponent pre-measures to know exactly where their Trooper gotta go to gain LOF to a single enemy Troop.
    Let's say the opponent declares: "I want to move exactly 2 inches and 12mm to this spot to get LOF to a single X and no LOF to the others" - we hate pie slicing, we say - "no"... ok
    Let's say the opponent declares: "I want to move exactly 2 inches and 12mm to this spot" instead. In N3 it was an educated guess, but now - it is pre-measured. Would you say "no"?

    Intent talk is a slippery slope, because both sides of the discussion consider themselves not only in the right, but also at the right side of fair play and etiquette. IMHO with Code One CB removed a lot of bad game experience interactions. They also provided a tool to gain certainty to where the miniature is supposed to go, so that there's no disappointment at the end of that move and the result is known before the move resolves. I am very curious to see what consensus - if any - the community will achieve on this.
     
    WiT? and Nuada Airgetlam like this.
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    On a technicality, I don't think we know whether you're allowed to check LOF using a Silhouette for locations prior to actually placing the model there.
     
  9. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,992
    Likes Received:
    7,072
    That would make pre-measuing movement awkward if it wasn't allowed.
     
    #9 inane.imp, May 8, 2020
    Last edited: May 9, 2020
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    You don't need to stick down a silhouette in order to measure movement distance...
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  11. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,992
    Likes Received:
    7,072
    I typo'd and somehow left a whole word out, I meant to say "it would make pre-measuring movement awkward".

    It would become, "sure you can know if you reach that spot but you can't know if you have LOF from that spot".
     
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    Yes. And I'm saying that it's perfectly possible that it might be CB's intent that we choose our final position without perfect knowledge, but only a decent estimation of it.

    P.s. Hell. Strictly speaking there's an explicit step in the Order Sequence where the reactive player checks whether they have LOF that sort of hints that LOF is checked only after the final position is chosen.
     
  13. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    125
    Same response I've always given to this question.

    If we can both agree that slicing the pie from a particular point is possible and you have enough movement to get there, then I don't need my opponent to find that exact spot down to the millimetre. We do however have to agree that it's even possible to do so first. Intent is not a magical ability that lets you accomplish the impossible.

    If any opponent were to insist that I find that exact spot to slice a pie down to the millimetre before moving (and no one anywhere that I've traveled has ever asked me to), then I'd accept that that's how they would like the game to be played. I'd let them know this game is going to take 5+ hours while I go crack out a few laser pointers and articulated arms. If we both know the spot exists then I'll find it, it just might take me a long time and where's the fun in that?. It's far easier for us to work together, agree on a spot and move the game forward.
     
    Mask, Djase01, Xeurian and 2 others like this.
  14. Teslarod

    Teslarod The Squeeze has not been Sqouze

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    4,583
    Does anyone else remember when yet another huge play by intent argument exploded?
    I'm dead certain it was closed with the definitive CB statement there would be a clear and official CB ruling/comment on the matter.

    2 years later premeasuring is a thing, which helps. But that's not exactly the same as an official statement on "how the game is supposed to be played".

    Not trying to criticize by all means, reading this thread just gave my memory a jumpstart and now I wonder if there was a follow up on the statement or if that's still pending.

    Might as well @HellLois @Koni
     
  15. konuhageruke

    konuhageruke Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    673
    Why is there another discussion on this anyway? We all made our arguments, we just need official statement, about this and again there is none.
    I am personally m very dissapointed, because, in last one there was suggestion that problem will be solved in next edition. If it ain't clear in C1 I am pretty sure it won't be in n4.
    Very dissapointed
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  16. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2,521
    Why would a complex competetive concept be touched upon in the simplified beer format? It's much more likely that it will be mentioned in N4 rather than C1.
     
    MikeTheScrivener likes this.
  17. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    3,481
    I still don't understand the hang up over an official statement. what difference does it make?
     
  18. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    740
    Intent play changes balance. To have a general consensus how that is played would help before a tournament. That said i have yet to see a tourny that does not support intent play. But it is not like i get around alot.
     
    Berjiz likes this.
  19. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    3,481
    lol I can guarantee you 95% of people who play this game won't change their etiquette because of a little sentence in the pdf.
     
  20. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2,521
    Eh, if intent play will be forbidden in the rulebook, you can claim intent moves are illegal and that you are not forced to give your opponent any assistance with avoiding ARO / slicing single models ("where it falls, it falls"), etc.;

    At the same time, if the rulebook openly states that stuff like possible ARO are Open Information and introduces an extended "wobbly model" type of a rule (per "My model would face the wall and be invisble to this angle, but it has a sword sticking out, so I'm placing him "whatever" and intent is ABC"), then OTOH opponents could not in good faith refuse Open Information or acknowledging intent play.
     
  • 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