I think this, from the rules subforum, is a perfect example of how the complexity is getting out of hand. We have a question, @ijw answers it, provides examples as justifications (not quoted), and then @HellLois swoops in out of nowhere and completely contradicts him. At this point I'm not sure I believe anyone at CB knows what's going on with their own game anymore.
But he is not native Spanish speaker and the rules are created in Spanish, then translated. I think that the most important thing is for everyone to play the same game, regardless of small language fckups that might occure. I don;t like some of the CB's rulings, like Full-Auto not stacking with Supressive Fire. Sucks to be me :P It is great that CB actually answered and set things straight. Most people I know played the way CB ruled anyway.
I'd argue that there more English speaking players than Spanish speaking, but I don't really think that matters. If the game isn't working in English, it probably isn't working in Spanish either. Not to make it sound like the game is broken, but it could definitely stand to get a tune up. At a minimum I wish CB would look at how they are using keywords and update the rules to be more consistent with how those keywords are presented and used. English is kind of a terrible language anyway, and that's coming from a native speaker lol!
It's worth noting that the answer @Jimbo quoted was the second answer @HellLois gave on it. The first answer was a can of worms (as it was generalisable to Fireteams, Co-ord orders and G-Sync). @HellLois' revised answer makes it clear that RAW didn't line up with the original intention and provides clarity, I have no issue with improved clarity (although do wish to see this in the next FAQ so it's more obvious). Applying a heirarchy of rules authority where @HelLois trumps @ijw isn't complex, so I don't have an issue with that either. What I find interesting about the answer (in the context of this conversation) is that it creates a specific exception for Engineer/Doctor that (AFAICT) doesn't apply to skills like Move and Electric Pulse. That exception adds complexity. This complexity would be fine if it was necessary: but nobody has ever argued that an Engineer or Doctor being able to use a G:Servant to Doctor/Engineer while IMM is at all imbalanced. So, the exception is needless. In fact, since being able to unglue yourself was an interesting tactical option, the ruling has both increased complexity and decreased tactical options for no real change to game balance. That strikes me as dull.
Yeah, it's honestly surprising that the community is able to come to a consensus on these things in spite of that.
You appear to have missed the second line in what you quoted, 'Background-wise, I think it's dodgy, and I wanted it to be the Engineer performing the Skill not just a mention of the Engineer being the one rolling.'.
Yeah, I thought it is the player that is rolling the dice. But it's never too late to learn! What do you do if the miniature refuses to roll the die?
If this was a situation that was a common occurrence, I'd agree with you. But it requires a lot of different circumstances to come into play that make this a very rare occurrence. You'll need to the following to be present: 1) Engineer 2) Palbot (or equivalent) 3) Trooper with ADHL (or equivalent) Then the following actions need to occur: 1) Engineer gets IMM-2 on his turn (If it happens during the opponents turn, likely the next order is to shoot the engineer) 2) Palbot need to be close enough to make the orders worth spending 3) After using the Palbot, it still makes sense for the engineer to be spending order, rather than some other specialist. I don't know how often this would come up, but I do know I can't remember the last time somebody used an AHDL on any of my troops, which is never. Add in the odds for having an engineer, having that engineer being the one shot, and that engineer also having a pal bot, and fixing it making strategic sense, and frankly I think it's time to buy a lotto ticket.
Mad Traps. Always Mad Traps or Akrylat Kanone (Lunokhod or Arjuna) or Hunting Party. And I have buddies who like ADHL as they are higly effective ARO weapon againts HIs, TAGs and NWI/Dogged troopers. Yu Jing is as always sweet and forgiving toward its soldiers as I see... About the subject in general, I think that the game is getting too complex each time a new rule or skill is given and not really dumbproof written. I can feel when a skill has been carefully written (like new Marksmanship LX) because there had been feedback about the old one. I know CB wants to keep its new stuff secret but there is a real need to give to the community the means to give feedbacks on the writing. Say, one month before the mini that has this new skill pops out, the text is given to the forum, Gutier gives us how he wants the skill to work and we check if the text says so. There would be no way to modify what the skill does but to make sure that the ruling is consistent and well written. Then, we all know how it works and we can explain to new players exactly how it works. I know this should be CB duty but I think it would be more constructive and healthy if the community can give a hand to CB about this. We all want a clearer ruling, so let's give the ones who want to help freely a chance to do it. The others can still stay at the back and watch if they don't want to spend time on it. What do you think about all these?
What I'd like to see, maybe even for ITS, is a rule given out, and the people play test it and give their feed back. Then it comes out official later on. It might be too much trouble though
You make a good point. If the engineer can move+repair with the palbot while himself being IMM, then is there any point in ungluing himself ? rather he can just send the palbot to fix the TAG or other, while staying IMM.
I don't care about the ruling, it was just an example of inconsistency. I think that CB's looooong periods of silence in the rules forum, coupled with IJW stepping up to help, has caused it's own problem. We as a community put a lot of pressure on the poor guy. @ijw I saw your comments about how you thought it should be worded. I agree with the final ruling that HellLouis posted. I didn't read the other thread that had been linked in, so I definitely missed something. What I'm really trying to get at is that the game is made more complex by the inconsistency within the rules, not by the rule set and concept of the game itself. We have rules with prerequisites listed in the effects, and vice versa. Keywords are introduced, but then only loosely followed. I don't think we really need an N4, but we do really need an N3.5. Just clean up the rules, condense them into one PDF, and stop printing rules in books entirely. They're basically just for the fluff and art anyway, we can get the rules for free. @FatherKnowsBest What about all the other rules questions that need an answer? Especially about the use of NCO and TA in a fireteam? It seems that the community has decided how to play it, and we're probably right. But dropping new rules that don't mesh well with the current rules, then going on vacation, and completely ignoring 3 or 4 threads that popped up almost immediately doesn't inspire faith in some people. Prior to that solved answer yesterday, it had been 2 months! since we had any answer from them. I don't think that's ok.
For years I've been saying that CB need to cool it with the releases and new additions to the game and get things answered and straight. But it's been full steam on the release and new rules and interactions train for a loooong time. That's the direction they've chosen to go. That and some really badly posed sculpts and some very stupid names for things. But it's their game. They can do what they want. They can call it Merry Problems' fucking trash can parrot bot and it's their decision.
I agree with you on this point. I absolutely loathe this mentality. As players and consumers it's also OUR game. And we can voice our opinions here in the hopes that CB will at least consider our concerns. CB can do what they like, but that doesn't mean they should.
