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. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Good thinking. This seems like it would work. And I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work. As someone else pointed out, it will only cover one corner and B2 may be vulnerable to other pieces at different angles.

    It does take some getting used to that you usually have to expect your AROs to be fought one at a time. A beginner's first instinct might be to bring three snipers, picturing the opponent moving a model and going down in a hail of bullets. But the actual mechanics of Infinity are that your opponent will get to fight your snipers one at a time. It does make ARO pieces weaker than they might initially seem, but once you get used to it it's just part of the game balance.

    You'll often hear the adage "everything dies." ARO pieces are there to slow your opponent down. Position your sniper so that the adversary has to spend a bunch of orders moving his HMG to a bad spot to take it out, before he can move his specialist up to the objective. Etc. etc. Better players than me have discussed ARO strategy in depth on these forums. Basically, ARO pieces can be used effectively, knowing that they will only get to shoot one at a time.
     
    meikyoushisui and Florian Hanke like this.
  2. gregmurdock

    gregmurdock Extremely Beloved Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    489
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Also the Mutual Awareness rule fixes part of that. If you step into B2's sight and they shoot as their reaction, this grants you Lof to shoot them back.

     
  3. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    130
    I think we're getting to the heart of why some people disagree then. As far as I'm concerned this is not intent. Playing with intent is not there to walk back mistakes if you jumped the gun and moved without all the information. If a judge allowed your opponent to take back movements, then you have my sympathy as I strongly disagree with that. I pointed out in my example everything related to intent should be worked out before any orders are spent, skills declared, or models moved.

    I'd like to apologize then, I was not trying to say you were an ass and I'll try to clarify what I meant. Infinity is unique in the tabletop world because it's unanimously considered a collaborative game that we play with our opponents. This is a distinguishing feature of infinity and its community that sometimes isn't readily apparent at first to new players, especially ones coming from other systems, because it's extremely difficult to adjudicate things like that in a rule set.

    As a result, I'm sure there's more than a few players with examples from when they first started playing of games where their opponent intentionally held back knowledge of an ARO in the hopes they would unknowingly stumble into it. This is what is known as a "gotcha" and it's generally considered a very negative play experience. Corvus Belli was able to fix this in N3 by making all LoF open information as well as the following;

    Now, I will absolutely admit that you are correct that these points do seem to be missing in CodeOne, and for all we know Corvus Belli did that on purpose. I think it's much more likely they left it out because they hoped players would just work together to give each other the best experience, rather than CB wanting to actually change the current and well liked rules into a system filled with more "gotchas".

    If you were playing a game, and asked your opponent "If I moved my model to this corner, what models could see it?" and they replied with "Figure it out yourself, I don't have to help you" then I'd say they are being an ass.

    Sometimes I take experience for granted, to me it was obvious I didn't mean TO camo when talking about "gotcha" moments. That is an integral and extremely interesting part of the game, and was clearly designed as it's own type of surprise. The term "gotcha" moments has meant something quite specific for many years now, and it didn't occur to me to be specific about what that was, so I'll apologize here again.

    And the 5 hour game thing is essentially just a hyperbole to show that if someone were to be an ass like in my example above in the hopes of gaining an advantage, then I have no problem being an ass back to make sure they don't get it.
    It's just to show that either we can collaborate and work together to have a great game that we'll both enjoy, or the whole game just tends to fall apart.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,045
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    Intent is something that has evolved in our group due to exposure to forums and gathering experience. It has so far been something we've had to introduce to new players or where new players have read the forums and decided that the most extreme form of intent is the norm.

    I have had this happen to me once, and that time the player tried to do it to both sides of the building my decently high value units (one of my last remaining specialists iirc) was standing behind.

    The problem with this form of intent is that it's highly theoretical and it is also completely impossible while playing with such highly theoretical intent. You have to put B2 model in a direct perfect line with the point where A1 exposes 3mm to B1 and directly above or below B1 otherwise there is going to be an infinitismal micron where A1 can slice the unit standing furthest out or furthest back.
    Unless the terrain is extremely accomodating.

    At this point you've probably lost any semblance of time gain discussing trigonometry that a good rule of thumb is that when playing with extensive intent it is impossible to stack AROs. Unless they are directly perfectly above each other (i.e. urban box scenery with accessible interiors)
     
  5. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    I dunno, even without intent it doesn't seem that hard to do with a laser line. Draw the line where A1 will first see B1, then put B2 like a mm over that line. Seems like it would probably work, although without a table in front of me I wouldn't want to say for sure.

    Anyway, this does seem like the point where there are legitimate differences of opinion on how intent works between players and/or metas. Personally I don't feel strongly either way and would likely agree to play it whichever way my opponent preferred. But it would be nice if CB were to release that clarifying statement we're all waiting for :-)
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,045
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    If you do that, there's going to be several microns difference where the slicing model will expose 3mm of themselves to the rear model first because you need any difference at all to actually have LOF with the rear model. You'll be able to prevent slicing against the forward model, but not the rear model. If you don't play with intent it's probably possible to set up double-ARO this way because the precision of movement for the active player is well beyond human capabilities.
     
  7. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,697
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    You may be right. I drew a diagram and it didn't look that way to me, but I could be missing something. It's too much of an edge case to worry about, like I said my solution at the table would just be to play it however my opponent prefers.
     
  8. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    44
    I believe it should theoretically be possible to not expose a 3*3 on B2 using B1, basically you need an isosceles triangle where one side is less than 3mm, and right now my properties of circles and trigonometry is incredibly rusty, but I think the maths works out. In practice this would be difficult to do and depending on the size of the building you could also shield B2 using B3. But then that’s even harder and the ability to draw LOF from anywhere on your silhouette at a target in your front arc as per the code one rules mean you could cover two corners in a way that you get double AROs
     
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,045
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    It's not B1 or B2 that gets 3x3mm exposed, it's A1 and then A1 gains LOF to B2 through reciprocal LOF, but not B1 because B1 can't see full 3x3mm.

    If B1 is exposing 3x3mm prior to being able to see A1's 3x3mm, then A1 will be able to peek out sufficiently to slice B1
    If B1 is not exposing 3x3mm prior to A1's 3x3mm becoming visible, then A1 will be able to peek out sufficiently to slice B2
    The reason is that B2 can never have the same LOF as B1 because B1 will be blocking B2's LOF at all points where their LOF would be exactly the same, so there will always be a theoretical difference and when using intent you're allowed to slice that theoretical difference - that's literally what intent is made for.
    There should also never be an intersection point between the two different cases because they do not share pivoting points. It's also not possible to perfectly set both units' "sight point" to be perfectly intersecting away from the corner as a pivot point because B1 will be blocking B2's field of view.

    Basically, there's more than one situation that can result in A1 slicing and it's therefor impossible to set a perfect defence up.

    However, this does not apply if A1 is taller than the Bs or if the B2 is taller than B1 (through Prone, for instance). At this point I need to back down from my earlier claim. The key point here is that B1 and B2 need to stand sufficiently conservatively into total cover so that neither will expose 3x3mm to A1 before A1 exposes 3x3mm to their communal perfectly aligned line to A1's pivot corner.
    This is fairly precise work, though, so it does mean that there should be a huge onus on player B to properly and extensively measure correct movement when setting up the slice - or making sure to leave a good margin for error when setting it up. My experience is that players often feel a need to accomplish as much as possible with their orders so these margins almost never exist.
    As a small note, typically this means B2 will not have partial cover* and typically it also means their LOF to other AROs will suck.

    * Don't set terrain up in a perfect grid!
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,967
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    These cases are equivalent to stacking models using vertical terrain features.
     
    RobertShepherd and meikyoushisui like this.
  11. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,798
    I think this overcomplicates it significantly beyond what you actually need to say and how much a player needs to understand.

    "Since those two models are next to each other, basic triangle geometry means I will see that one first. I would like to move to the point where I can see that model."

    You don't need to go into all the theory of how it works at first. Hell, you can just say "I want to slide out until I can see one and only model of yours", and then have your opponent watch from the perspective of their miniature until it looks right to them and to you...


    I think I referenced this situation earlier in the thread -- the reality of the math is that there exists only a single straight line where A1 needs to take both AROs. (You can also do this by stacking models vertically, or by mixing silhouettes.) That's fine -- picking any other angle means both of the troops are exposed one at a time, quite possibly without cover.

    Intent makes that position easier to set up, but that's a lot of setup to get a bonus that a Fireteam gets for just having three guys around...

    Whether or not your play with intent, there's a few things you should understand about AROs:
    1) AROs are difficult to set up because of the natural advantages the active player has -- this is by design! We've been discussing AROs that feel too strong for months and many players agree that they make the pace of the game too slow.
    2) A skilled enough player, with or without intent, will always be able to take AROs one at a time.
    3) You should never expect to win the game in the Reactive Turn.
    4) Everything you leave up to ARO will probably die.
    5) Unless you're playing an army with a lot of really strong direct ARO options, controlling the table with mines, jammers, camo markers, smoke, and templates is a lot more effective than controlling it with snipers, missiles, etc.

    If you are just starting out, you will probably feel like everything you leave up to ARO dies. That's because they should! The best general advice I can give to a new player is to hide more -- don't make it easy for your opponent to shoot your list down. Make them come to you and risk overextending. (This will of course change depending on your faction, but I would say that in general you should never have more than 2 pieces up to ARO with guns, and you should only leave them on lanes you are very committed to controlling.)
     
  12. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    44
    but if B2 doesn’t choose an attack ARO instead choosing to dodge perhaps then A1 will never get reciprocal LOF , so in order for A1 to do an attack it will need to move out further on its first skill or waste the second skill.
     
  13. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,967
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Reciprocal LoF is not dependent on what ARO is declared.
     
    RobertShepherd and meikyoushisui like this.
  14. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    558
    Considering I have literally never seen a game of infinity not use some form of intent, including a literal demonstration of playing without intent, you could change the name of the argument to pie slicing vs not pie slicing and the arguments would not change.

    The majority of people I play with barely understand basic geometry but someone going for this would get a pass from me to do it.
    I do every now and then have one trooper go prone to make a ARO stack, in one silly case I even used a two troopers (one prone) a flash REM, and a gecko for a quad ARO stack.... is was silly and did me no good.


    The idea that pie slicing was unrealistic and as such tarnished the suspension of disbelief was presented. I was just pointing out it is a real life combat tactic, so the idea of well trained units doing it should not be that surprising. The guys rushing into a room without sweeping it first is best represented by the impetus ruleset.
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    11,045
    Likes Received:
    13,798
    Not entirely. If stacking above, you won't have perspective making the rear model expose 3x3mm before the forward model so you don't need to set them up to rely on the attacker exposing 3x3mm and can set them up to trigger LOF gain when they do.

    There might be a position the models could set up where they are positioned so that A will gain LOF to 3x3mm on both B1 and B2 at the same time prior to either B gaining LOF to A, but frankly my head hurts trying to draw all angles and positions necessary that I couldn't verify if that's even theoretically possible during a game. It would have to be a stupidly precise staggered setup if so, and probably involve very favourable terrain and angles.
     
  16. ijw

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

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,081
    Likes Received:
    14,430
    As an aside, and without commenting on the main topic, I suspect you and @psychoticstorm are talking at cross-purposes.

    I think PS is saying that a new player, from reading the CodeOne rules, is not going to come to the conclusion that you can nominate a theoretical position to control your LoF.
     
  17. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    I would be very surprised if they do not come up with that as soon as minis hit the table.

    I have yet to see a player who in the below situation doesn't realize "Uh, this is a bad idea, now they BOTH can fire at my orange dude, I'd better move back a bit behind the corner so that the purple dude doesn't see me (that is in "pro gamer" parlance, pie-slice the corner so that I have reciprocal LOF only to the yellow model)".

    Limiting exposure is a newbie concept that either emerges from the get-go or gets taught by getting shwacked by two AROs at once.

    upload_2020-5-15_14-7-48.png
     
  18. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    44
    ► As long as any Trooper can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well, as long as the attacker is within the target’s front 180o arc.

    from the above it seems that the term attacker would imply that reciprocal LOF does depend on ARO choice I.e. an attack , can you please show me how else you can gain reciprocal LOF , it’s quite possible I’m missing something in the rules
     
  19. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    1,848
    You seem to be taking the word “attacker” in that phrase to mean something other than just “the other trooper”. It doesn’t. And this sort of wording is something that CB has done multiple times in the past, with things like Dodge in N3.

    Especially since that bullet point is almost a copy-paste from the N3 wording. (See N3 rules PDF, Mutual Awareness on page 18). Edit: The only reason I don’t say it’s a copy-paste is because they removed a transition used in the original paragraph. It’s otherwise word for word.
     
    #139 solkan, May 15, 2020
    Last edited: May 15, 2020
  20. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    44
    noun
    1. 1.
      a person or animal that attacks someone or something
    This is my definition and I suspect most people’s definition of the word attacker, if CB mean something else then they need to either define attacker as enemy trooper or rephrase the bullet point. Could you please point me to the definition of attacker you are using in the C1 rules please. Because I wouldn’t call someone not doing an attack an attacker.

    So you’re saying that A1 moves and reveals 3*3 but doesn’t see a 3*3 of B2, B2 chooses to forgo his ARO, that A1 can shoot B2 because even though B2 did nothing A1 has reciprocal LOF because B2 could see a 3*3 of A1?
     
  • 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