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. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    130
    So, I think a large part people seem to be missing when it comes to "playing by intent", is that the models physical location isn't something left in limbo, or blatantly left in the incorrect spot and I'm just magically declaring it is where I want it to be.

    Whenever it comes up for me, I've asked my opponent to help me find a spot for the model to be placed where we could both agree the intent of my move was the final physical location of the model.

    I choose to activate a model and communicate with my opponent about the intent of my movement.
    Then, using my opponents assistance, I move the model to a physical location that we can both agree fulfills my intent.
    This leads to a meaningful discussion with my opponent, where they may tell me I need to nudge my model a few mm back or forward from where I though it should go.
    We both agree on the placement and we roll dice. There is no opportunity to later "cheat" by saying the second model has LoF, not only because we agreed or it was intended, but because working together, we placed my model in a spot that we agreed did not physically have LoF to the second model.

    And sometimes, if models are on an angle, or the pie slicing is awkward, the line is so close that this just isn't possible, even though it may technically be mathematically possible, it is not practically possible to find a location, so we let the active player decide if he wants to see both or neither.

    And when it comes to saving time and the erroneous claim that people will speed up by just deciding to take the risk of multiple AROs or not, I think this is complete crap. If that spot clearly exists and you require me to place my model in that exact spot with no help or agreement of intent from you, I guarantee you I WILL find that spot. Because making sure my decisions are executed the way I intend for them to be is more important to me than fulfilling your desire to watch me make a fat fingered mistake. So I'll break out multiple laser pointers and you'll just have to sit there and wait for me to be completely happy with my position for every move of every model of every order and our game will either take 5 hours, or if we're at a tournament we'll only finish a single turn.

    Or we can play the game together, have fun, and be done in a reasonable amount of time where no one thinks the other is a dick.
     
    Berjiz, Djase01, Vanderbane and 8 others like this.
  2. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    321
    I agree with everything you say, but I would just mention that when playing by intent, my opponent and I (yes, I have only one) have taken shortcuts when putting down the mini. It's never ended in anything weird for us, but I still think it's a thing.

    I've just posted such a case elsewhere in the forum where the actual positioning ends up a bit off, creating a weird situation. I'm still curious how people would solve this kind of case IRL.
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  3. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    2,180
    Currently we all have to play on TTS so this is common and unavoidable. TTS just doesn't give you full control over where you place your minis, at least not without painstaking use of gizmo tools to make adjustments. Sometimes all you can realistically do is say "I intend to place this on the corner, in cover, even though the model on the table is slightly back from cover." And we just have to both remember that the model's actual placement is not quite its physical placement.
     
    Alfy and RobertShepherd like this.
  4. miguelbarbo84

    miguelbarbo84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2018
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    159
    Besides the game-wise issues (both positive and negative), and although I do usually play by intent with some friends, I feel the game loses some of it's RPG element, because -Aleph apart- such mathematical precision doesn't fit too much in the theme of action packed infantry skirmishes...

    Just for this I'm leaning towards non-intent play more and more, but I admit it's not a valid argument for competitive play
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  5. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,593
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Behold the power of F8, my friend :)
     
  6. Tourniquet

    Tourniquet TJC Tech Support

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    1,476
    All LOF is easily provable in a matter of seconds in a game (Line laser) and allows you check LOF of an opponents model and easily avoid it, same goes for checking your own in such a way that your model is in a position that you can predict where an opponent's model needs to be to see it.

    You don't need intent to slice, quickly and easily.

    No what is actually being discussed is Should LOF be allowed to be checked at any time.

    Providing that you do not move the model again from the final position it drew LOF to slice and that it (or a proxy silhouette if terrain/sculpt is being a pain in the ass) is in the correct position that BOTH you and you opponent agree on, then it should be physically impossible for the second mini to draw LOF with out moving from it's current position. because it can be physically proven on the table and correctly represent the board state then you don't need to remember a web of invisible special relationships.

    also where everyone seems to be getting theoretical LOF and spatial distortions is beyond me, unless you all don't actually play with physical models.

    100% agree, Intent is a conversation between you and your opponent such that they are aware of what you are doing and backs up what is physically happening on the table to remove confusion

    Again 100% agree, If the opponent feels like they must rely on gotchas to play the effectively then I am going to make absolutely sure they never get one.
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  7. pseudonymmster

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    16
    I actually think intent makes more sense lore-wise. A soldier, when given the high-level information that we have available (perfect knowledge of current layout of soldiers), they can follow the order to move just far enough to see one enemy unit and fire at that one.

    Rules-wise, I almost never see this brought up, but there are people who have physical disabilities that make placing units precisely difficult/impossible. There is no reason that I can see to force the ability to place a unit precisely to be a necessary skill for the game.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  8. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    2,180
    That hasn't been my experience. Laser lines waver, and the vertical dimension can make LoF harder to identify. I find this very common:

    1. Using a laser line, I move to the point that looks to me like where I can see A but not B, while saying "I move to see A but not B."
    2. My opponent says "I think you can see B from there, you need to stop a few mm sooner."
    3. I say "ok, how about here?"
    4. Opponent says "yeah, perfect."

    In fact I often think my original spot was the correct one based on my laser line measurement. But it doesn't matter because with intent, we can just agree on the right spot. I'm happy to lose a few mm of movement to avoid a debate.

    Without intent, it would go like this:

    1. I move to the point that looks to me like where I can see A but not B. I say nothing, because my intent doesn't matter.
    2. Opponent says "A and B both shoot you."
    3. I say "no, B can't see me here."
    4. Now we have to argue about whether I got my placement right.

    In the first scenario, you're right that it takes a matter of seconds, but only because we're playing with intent. Without intent, use of a laser line isn't sufficient to agree on LoF in a matter of seconds.

    tl;dr - the table isn't an objective representation of LoF, because LoF can't be "proved." Two reasonable people can look at the same table and and disagree on who has LoF. Intent solves this.
     
  9. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,796
    The reactive player doesn't choose anything with or without pie slicing. The agency to control the flow of the game is 100% in the hands of the active player, regardless of the game.

    No, it doesn't. Double AROs can still be pie sliced without PBI. PBI just provides a tool to guarantee this without relying on the manual dexterity of active player. (We are no longer talking about a timed environment, correct?)

    "bold" means "to put into a bold typeface". It is not the same as "boil."

    And I've seen people play without intent and bump tables? A plurality of anecdotes isn't evidence. People who are going to cheat will find ways to do so regardless of the ruleset -- because cheating is outside of the ruleset.

    This argument feels dishonest to me because pie-slicing is still just as possible without intent. The only thing intent does is make pie-slicing not reliant on a player's physical dexterity.

    To frame it in terms of skill, it reduces the skill floor of the game, without changing the skill cap. Or in other words, it makes it easier for beginners, but doesn't change the game at all for the most advanced players. Those kinds of changes are generally good ideas.
     
    #69 meikyoushisui, May 13, 2020
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  10. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,796
    The other advantage here is that intent ensues that players aren't in adversarial positions when it comes to providing open information, being courteous, and working together to position the miniature. With PBI, all of the information about who can see what will be resolved before the short skill is finished, so both players will have perfect knowledge of all lines of sight before AROs happen.

    Without intent play, the reactive play is highly incentivized to avoid providing as much information about positioning as they possibly can. That's the only reason you can even get the double ARO (the one that pie slicing makes impossible without a choice by the active player) in the first place.
     
  11. the huanglong

    the huanglong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,995
    Likes Received:
    3,612
    The funny thing is, most pie-slicing pop-out attacks don't finish in LOS, so mm precise final placement isn't an issue, mm precise puppetry is...

     
    #71 the huanglong, May 13, 2020
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
    Dragonstriker and Tourniquet like this.
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,734
    Likes Received:
    13,403
    You realize that you completely cut out the context, right? You may want to re-read what I wrote if you actually want to address it.

    We're not talking about easy slices and you took that one, too, completely out of context. Well done.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  13. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    7,336
    This again and it only needed a day to explode...

    You are been watched.
     
  14. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,593
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    How exactly would "pie-slicing" be disallowed? It's not doable without some really silly rules on movement and engaging targets.
     
    the huanglong and meikyoushisui like this.
  15. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    yes, it can be done without PBI, nobody has said it couldn't. Its just that PBI does it automatically. And again, it is not "manual dexterity", but here we will not agree. You can play without intent using laser pointers, but that needs time.

    In a timed environment it is relevant, in a timeless one isn't. I think I have repeated that a few times, so why insist on that?

    That has nothing to do with PBI, and the reactive player has not the obligation to say who can ARO, the same way he can forgot to aro with some troopers and the active player has no obligation to remind him.

    Being courteous is when both players share the information the same way, and can be done with or without PBI. If the active player don't remind AROs the reactive player forgot to, the reactive player doesn't have the obligation to make public all AROs he es avaiable. If both agree on playing like that, then there is courtesy too.

    But I've seen people using PBI to save them from all AROs that he could forgot, while not reminding the reactive player of troopers that could ARO, so, with that kind of argument, we could say "with PBI, the active play is highly incentivized to avoid providing as much information about positioning as they possibly can." (And of course, that is also false).

    the thing about PBI, is that there are people that use it "to fix the position of the miniature" until it's in the possition they want, and people that let he miniature in a place and use "intent" to get the pie slicing they want ignoring the real place. The first kind are ok to me, and can be achieved without "phisical dexterity", just using other tools (laser pointers, laser liners, rulers downwards, etc.) and time. The second kind (which I've also seen in high tournaments) is what I think should not be used, is prone to cheats and gives unfair advantage to the active player. Maybe some of you have only seen people use PBI in the first way
     
    #75 Armihaul, May 13, 2020
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
  16. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,796
    Because it seems like you bounce back and forth on whether or not you're talking about a timed environment based on whichever makes your position easier to defend? I make a point about a time environment and you say it's not relevant without timers, I make a point about untimed environments and you say it's not relevant with timers...

    I can't understand what you mean by this, could you expound on this point?

    This distinction seems completely arbitrary to me.
     
    the huanglong likes this.
  17. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    eemm...no. I said several times that I was refering to time-limited games. Every time I didn't put that expresedly, someone then thought that I was refering back to non-timed events. Then do I have to put it again, and again, and again expresedly? Maybe is a problem from my side in which I am not so able to express what I want...or maybe is a problem from the person readeng, which is looking for who knows what. Seems to me that I have to put "in time-limited games" for every phrase I write about PBI, which will make this absurdly longer.

    player A moves dude A1 and say "I move in a way that only B1 sees my A1". Player A forgot that there is a B3 that will see A1 before B1, so when player B says "B1 and B3 aro". the "only B1 sees him" is one way of missuse PBI, but with that, player B is forced to say "dude, B3 can see you too, remember it". But on the other side, if B doesn't remember about B3 and B1 dedices for example, then A1 could get a normal shot against B3.

    It's just one possible distinction between good use and bad use of a "house rule" like PBI. It doesn't need to be the only possible distinction.
     
  18. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    2,180
    Hmm. Perhaps you're not arguing against intent, after all. If that's your issue, it may be easier to solve than you realize.

    As reactive player, you always have the right to say "I don't think your placement meets your intent, please fix it." In my experience this happens every game. I described the process above, and it works quickly and easily. The important thing is that both players in good faith want the active player to achieve his intent, and work together to find the position that makes it happen.

    As reactive player, you also have the right to say so if you think the active player's intent can't be achieved because the desired position doesn't exist. For example, if your opponent says "I move to see A but not B," you have every right to say "I think that as you come around the corner, you'll see B before you see A." In that case we'll resolve as necessary using laser lines, silhouettes, explanation/debate, and calling the TO over if we need to. Those debates aren't that frequent (usually, what the active player can or can't do is obvious based on basic geometry), but they happen from time to time and there's nothing wrong with that.

    So if you feel that your opponents are using intent as an excuse to fudge their positioning, the problem can be dealt with within the PBI framework. It isn't necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    That may be true in Code 1, I don't know. It definitely isn't true in N3. From the N3 wiki: "Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it. Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner. Honesty and fair play are conducive to a better gaming atmosphere, and all players benefit from that."

    So in N3, if you propose to move to point A, your opponent is indeed obligated to tell you what AROs that movement would generate.

    Fair enough, and I realize there's a history to this issue. That said, in this thread there were really just two people spiraling into personal attacks, and they seem to have calmed down now. Hopefully individual warnings or sanctions will be sufficient and a general thread lock won't be necessary.
     
    Djase01, nazroth, toadchild and 2 others like this.
  19. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,949
    Likes Received:
    3,901
    Maybe we play differently, but I would tell me opponents this anyway.
     
  20. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,304
    Likes Received:
    4,633
    Well, we were told this is a known issue and someone would give the community some closure on the topic to avoid this becoming the problem it always grows up to be time and time again.

    Not sayin' we were lied to, but kinda still waiting on that follow up a couple years later. If it isn't too much trouble to cash in on that on the grounds of it having been offered freely by CB.
     
  • 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