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. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    Yes, that is exactly what we are saying.
     
    Dragonstriker and Bobman like this.
  2. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    1,948
    That's correct, yes. The use of the word "attacker" isn't ideal, but the rules also describe it as "if I can see you, you can see me" which is a much clearer description of reciprocal LoF.
     
  3. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    Since this is reciprocal, it also cuts both ways.

    Active model peeks 1mm of their base out, drawing a 3x3 LoF onto reactive model.
    Reactive model does not have their own LoF, but gains it via reciprocal LoF, even though all the active model has done so far is move.
    Reactive model declares Dodge.
    Active model... also dodges?

    In any case, both AROs are legal even though no attacks were declared. If the reactive model could not use reciprocal LoF here, it would cause a number of weird timing issues.
     
  4. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    44
    I seem unable to delete my comment
     
    toadchild likes this.
  5. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,160
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    That is how it works, yes. Reciprocal LoF is not created by one or the other party declaring an attack. Reciprocal LoF is created by one party having LoF.

    Disclaimer: I didn’t bother to quote your dictionary quotation because it’s irrelevant.

    You wanted evidence that that passage doesn’t mean what you thought it does. That’s why I produced the evidence of where that text originated.

    If the wording annoys you, you should direct that annoyance at Corvus Belli, because they wrote it that way, copying it from the previous edition’s texts that they have used to describe the concept.
     
  6. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    Criticism of CB for wording choice is 100% valid, and has been made many times. They cleaned up a number of minor issues in C1 (I like the universal find/replace for base contact as silhouette contact), but there are still cases where "attacker" is used to mean "other model, regardless of what sorts of skills it's declaring". It's a problem, and does lead to confusion.

    For a classic N3 example, see its use in Sixth Sense, where it's possible to read it as saying that none of the abilities granted by that skill work until after the opponent declares an attack on you, which is clearly contradictory to how the skill is intended to be used.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  7. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Apropos of nothing; AP & K1 should affect the ARM mod from cover.
    Change my mind.
     
  8. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    44
    I was looking for you to provide the evidence in the Code One rules, your evidence comes from N3 rules. As Code One is aimed at new players it seems strange that they need to look at a different soon to be defunct ruleset. That is why I included the dictionary definition of the word attacker as without referencing N3 that is the definition most new players will come to the game with.


    well the reactive model doesn’t need reciprocal LOF in Code One as the requirements are as follows
    Troopers can only Dodge if at least one of these is true:
    ► They are the Active Trooper.
    ► In the Reactive Turn, they have a valid ARO.
    ► They are affected by a Template Weapon.

    the only reference to any form of attack is being affected by a template weapon.

    Again I am making these statements from a new Code One players point of view, and assuming they haven’t read or want to read N3 as it’s an unrelated ruleset, and any preconceived views from n3 shouldn’t be applied to Code One. Apologies if I come across as confrontational, that is not my intention, I have been looking forward to CodeOne/N4 as n3 seemed to much of a mess of a ruleset and I’d rather be able to find answers in those rulesets without having to refer back to older rules.
     
    Jonas likes this.
  9. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    "Valid ARO" means you need either LoF to the active model or a ZoC violation by the active model. So if the enemy is more than 8" away, you need LoF to them to declare it.
     
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    7,381
    I'll go into a bit more detail, but I also want to say that I think this is diving a lot deeper than C1 is intended to go. I'm not going to quote any N3 rules, but it may not be possible to get a definitive answer using C1 alone. I think that if an unanswerable question arises in the "starter" product, looking to the "full" game isn't the worst possible approach.

    Here's how a normal dodge situation works:
    1. Active model moves so it's in cover and has LoF to at least a 3x3 area of reactive model.
    2. Reactive model has LoF to at least a 3x3 area of active model, and declares dodge.
    3. Active model shoots at reactive model.
    Everything is functioning exactly as intended, and this is the flow we'll see in 99.99% of games.

    On page 26, this is the part that defines reciprocal LoF:
    ► 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.​
    Please note that this is the only use of the word "attacker" on the entire page.

    Let's try a couple scenarios where reciprocal LoF comes into play.

    First, the active model limits their own exposure against a reactive model that is easily visible:
    With full reciprocal LoF
    1. Active model moves so that only a 1mm vertical stripe is visible around a corner, but has LoF to at least a 3x3 area of reactive model.
    2. Reactive model does not have its own LoF and must rely on reciprocal LoF. Declares dodge.
    3. Active model shoots with its second skill.
    With reciprocal LoF only triggered by "attack"
    1. Active model moves so that only a 1mm vertical stripe is visible around a corner, but has LoF to at least a 3x3 area of reactive model.
    2. Reactive model does not have its own LoF and must rely on reciprocal LoF. Currently there is no attack declared so there's no LoF; no LoF means no ARO.
    3. Active model shoots with its second skill.
    4. Reactive model gains LoF due to attack being declared and may ARO.


    Second, the active model is exposed but is shooting a highly obscured target:
    With full reciprocal LoF
    1. Active model moves to gain LoF to a 1mm strip of reactive model of reactive model.
    2. Reactive has LoF and declares Dodge.
    3. Active model has LoF via reciprocal LoF rule and shoots with its second skill.
    With reciprocal LoF only triggered by "attack"
    1. Active model moves to gain LoF to a 1mm strip of reactive model of reactive model.
    2. Reactive has LoF and declares Dodge.
    3. Active model has no LoF via reciprocal LoF rule since reactive model did not attack. Shooting is not possible.

    Neither of these interpretations breaks the game, but the first one is how I generally understand it to function. Input from CB on how much mechanical weight the word "attacker" is meant to have in that bullet point would be nice, but is not necessary in normal gameplay situations.
     
  11. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,800
    Likes Received:
    2,792
    If that's the case, then I would agree there.

    I think I was taught intent during the first five minutes of my first demo game. I was very confused the first time I played against someone who didn't want to play intent.
     
  12. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,481
    Likes Received:
    2,521
    Not wanting to play intent comes across as ill will towards opponent at the table. The reverse of intent play is "No, place the model and make your mistake, I already know how to abuse it and will argue that you made it, even though you were aware of what the mistake would be and you were attempting to avoid it".

    To me it's a definition of a shitty WAAC opponent that will not bend even an inch towards you and will not show you any grace.
     
    nazroth, Djase01 and toadchild like this.
  13. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    3,880
    Something to be aware of is that this cuts both ways. Some people are unfortunate enough to play in communities where the default is non-collaborative/coercive behavior between players. This isn't the norm in infinity (which by dint of its core mechanics makes ongoing dialogue with your playing partner almost obligatory) but it can happen when local cultural mores are strong enough to overcome the game's inherent incentives toward cooperation.

    For people in those situations, intent is an uncomfortable concept, because they're used to having to police their opponents rather than work with them to play the game. It comes across as a WAAC position itself, because they can't assume good faith on the part of the person expressing an intention.
     
  14. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    That's a bit disingenuous. Playing with or without intent doesn't make you a good/cooperative player or not. I've had experiences with people who don't like playing with intent who are stellar and supportive players to their opponents and the exact opposite with people who likes to play with intent. You can get absolutely demolished by a player using intent to obfuscate movement and lines of fire and speed up the game to the point where it's impossible for the opponent to even verify whether a slice even is possible. My worst experience when playing wargames has been playing Infinity and an opponent doing exactly that to me, and I have played against some very uncooperative gotcha-style Warhammer 40k in the past which is a strong contributing reason why I have permanently shelved 10k+ points of 40K (primary reason being that the rules are having a case of the dumb since the 80's).

    Playing intent doesn't make you a good person. All it does is change how you abuse the game against your opponent.
     
  15. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,481
    Likes Received:
    2,521
    Good no, cooperative of course. You literally refuse to cooperate with me on one of the most basic things, instead being obtuse about 1mm here or there and argumentative about consequences of that as result - because I will say I succeeded in my model placement and you will claim I did not. 15 minutes later the mood is sour and we're definitely not cooperating.

    That's a non-sequitur, I did not refer to the general character of the person, as it obviously cannot be measured by the binary of intent play. I meant the situation at hand and cooperating within that context.

    Example, please? How do you "obfuscate movement and lines of fire" by clearly declaring where the model is and what it sees?

    I'm sorry, if a player is "running past you" without allowing you to properly check for ARO / LOS, he's breaking the rules and being a cheating asshole. You can do that perfectly well without intent as well, just blaze through a few moves and not let the other person notice what's happening.

    So you got burned by a guy who played intent and abused mutual verification of movement, LOS, ARO, etc by playing "speed chess" with you and your takeaway is that intent was the problem there? I'm confused.

    I didn't say it made you a good person. Refusing to play intent when offered / requested though, especially by a regular, not "top-tier" player, is a red flag as far as I'm concerned. Unwillingness to cooperate always is.


    As above, the fact that one is forced to play with WAAC assholes doesn't make playing intent an inherently uncooperative mode of play. WAAC assholes have that quality that they will abuse any and all forms of gameplay trust and you have to pay close attention to whatever they're doing. I pity people with a meta like that, I am unfortunate enough to have several players of this kind locally.

    However that has no bearing on intent play itself. Intent play is a cooperative and trusting tool. The fact that people are able and willing to abuse that trust doesn't mean that it's wrong to trust people. It's wrong to abuse the trust offered by the other player.
     
    Tourniquet and nazroth like this.
  16. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,423
    Likes Received:
    1,948
    Arguing about who is or isn't a good person might risk moving this topic in the direction that got it banned the last time around?

    Also, I gotta say, Infinity has a great community. I like to compare it to duplicate bridge, which I've played regularly for about ten years now. Bridge is a game where the rules require cooperation, collaboration, and good faith, much more explicitly than Infinity's rules. Yet, the bridge community is chock full of complete assholes. When I started Infinity it was a breath of fresh air.

    If an opponent tries to win through gotchas and tries to refuse to allow PBI, they can definitely come across as an asshole and maybe they are. But I'd usually rather give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that's how they were taught the rules, or maybe they're new and just haven't figured out how the game works yet. It's just... I'd rather find reasons not to get angry rather than reasons to get angry. If I enjoyed hating my opponents, I'd go play some bridge.
     
    Djase01 likes this.
  17. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,481
    Likes Received:
    2,521
    That's exactly why I said "massive red flag", as in "OK, I gotta watch out here, he may or may not have ulterior motives in refusing PBI" and not "OMFG, anyone not playing intent is 100% a WAAC cheater asshole!!!" ;)
     
  18. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,484
    Likes Received:
    13,100
    I wasn't actually addressing you, more regarding what RobertShepherd wrote and in general the strawman that one way to play or the other means you're automatically going to play in a more generous and genuine way. At any level of intent you're going to have tools to be an asshole, they might look a bit different but you can still be an asshole with them.
     
  19. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    3,880
    No I think I pretty much stand by my (tentative) conclusions. For pith/clarity: I don't think the nature of a person has any correlation whatsoever to their opinion on this, but I think the nature of their company might.
     
  20. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,614
    Likes Received:
    7,129
    More or less what @ijw has said was my point, in my experience no new player especially a player coming purely from Infinity CodeOne will think of "intent" game-style except if it is hammered to him by the one demoing the game, to be honest coming back on an already activated miniature is a novel thing that some new players have issues to familiarize/ remember.

    On a more practical note, as I said this is an Infinity CodeOne thread, and everybody here brings baggage from old editions, rules that do not exist in Infinity CodeOne and frankly its not a good thread for any new player exploring Infinity CodeOne to read or get informed about any rules questions they can have for Infinity CodeOne.

    I think it needs to either close or move to off topic, I will hear a few suggestions before I do so.
     
  • 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