It's an in joke. I strongly believe that White Noise would play better if the NFB only applied to the order that you use the program rather than persisted for as long as the zone is in play because (except for NFB) there is no continuing relationship between the Hacker and the Zone. It turns on the fact that NFB applies to the effects of the program (of which the zone is one) not the Effects of the program (of which the Zone is not). Also the fact that the ongoing relationship is the intended interaction. To which my response has been, 'fine just remove NFB then, it's unnecessary'.
I meant defending the rules. When it comes to defending the game as a whole, I can only do that in a specific manner. It's because I love the modelling side of things, list building, and world. But I barely ever play or buy minis and can't recommend the game itself. I voice my concerns once in awhile here on these forums to show that I have money and interest to spend on Infinity. I don't think I'm asking for much either as I don't want fundamental changes to the product. I'm not asking for a different aesthetic or way to play the game. I want to play the game as CB intended... I just want them to provide a set of rules to do so accurately. I personally never want to go over potential rule issues with my opponent before a game. That, to me, is basically like arguing about all the issues first so that we can play the game, hopefully, without any game changing surprises. It may result in a cleaner game, but it also results in a worse experience overall. Also, I think those discussions at the casual level are more difficult. There is difference of opinion and a looser grasp of the rules as a whole. I don't know exactly where to reference every ruling my opponent hasn't seen and those cause just as much frustration. If I have to tell my opponent I don't know where the ruling is but that's how it's played, trust me, I feel like a jackass.
Honestly, none of the issues actually interfere with having a fun game. A small fraction of the issues interfere with having a competitive game. The vast majority of issues just don't come up, and if they do they're resolved at the table in a way that seems reasonable. Most issues arise between two experienced players who are slightly misremembering things or are experiencing a very niche janky interaction for the first time. The second is why most of these rules debates exist: they allow people to explore the edge cases before they come up in a game or after they've come up in a game and were resolved imperfectly. For example, the other active question came out of me experiencing the Sapper waddle for the first time, thinking it was BS (it and Holo-Echo are the only 2 ways to move into LOF without generating an ARO.... which is 'incoherent' with the general principal) and convincing my opponent (erroneously) that declaring a skill with the Movement trait would drop you from a Foxhole. Barring my tilt on an interaction that ultimately had very little effect on the game (I crit his Sapper with my MML2 Reaktion Zond) it was still a very fun game. I'd much prefer a game that is coherent so I only need to remember general principles, but honestly we're extremely close to getting a consistent interpretation for all (I hope) the known issues. None of which actually stop you having an entirely playable tabletop game.
There are a couple of places where I 100% agree that the rules are insufficiently clear and there are multiple possible readings with no clear way to distinguish them. When those come up in a game it can be a bother to resolve the issue. There are also a few places where the rules are clear, but lead to janky interactions. (mostly stuff about zone of control AROs) However, in most of my games I don't see weird rules issues come up. Even if we brush up against something with a known issue, it usually doesn't end up having an impact on the outcome of the game. Most other issues are easily solved by looking it up and then making a note how we want to consistently play it in future games. The times I run into the most rules issues are when a player is trying to engineer a situation where they are intentionally pushing the boundaries of what is allowed in the game. This sort of thing is bound to cause a slowdown anyway, because even if it is deemed legal, you still have to take the time to explain to your opponent why you are able to sidestep what they thought was a hard and fast rule.
Well, the argument is the rules should be tight enough that they don't allow for these sorts of boundary pushing antics in the first place. In a perfect world anyway.
