@Hecaton "@Wolf I know you have some extremely vociferous opinions about the game that don't match up with how the CB team plays the game." I don't think I've been 'vociferous', but I am outspoken in saying players should try to be clear about the official rules, and then clearly differentiate them from their own styles or house rules to other players - not coercing them into playing their style explicitly or tacitly. Secondly, I'm confused as to why you'd say my opinions don't match up with how the CB team play the game. It's quite well-known that I was instructed in person by senior members of their team - there isn't much doubt about my commitment to playing in their style! Are you perhaps confusing me with the guy in Japan who teaches others here that pre-measuring is a legitimate part of the game as part of the "Play By Intent" style. He was indeed most vociferous in defense of that unusual and clearly non-CB team play style?
An entirely moot point. CB decided the correct interpretation and issued an FAQ as such. Meta, hecha.
As I said, I think that the person who "decided the correct interpretation" wasn't the same person who wrote the rule. It was probably written to conform more to the Spanish meta than to be technically accurate.
Question: now the Aragoto, an Impetuous troop, have KHD. That gives them Cybermask, but the Impersonation state is cancelled on Impetuous troops. So, should we expect a "FAQ" about how Aragoto can Cybermask despite the rules going the other way? I still remember the KHD from Alive, and how he would lose access to Cybermask once he caused a wound (by hacking). FAQ: Frecuently Asked Questions. Fascinating, how this is not such, but a patch.
Well the issue with CB is that they are schizophrenic on the issue - sometimes they leave an egregious rule there because fixing it would be too much trouble, other times they "FAQratta" it. Seemingly randomly. It also gives the false impression that it's only clarifying the rules when in some cases it's in fact changing them.
CB issues clarifications and errata interchangeably which really messes with the ability to understand design intent and further pushes the players understanding further and further away from internal consistency as the errata builds but the original document is maintained as it was originally created which leads to compounding misinterpretation by both the player base and the designers themselves. This ruleset has more FAQ and interpretations than technical standards an order of magnitude larger. Time needs to be spent at the company level to assess their rule direction beyond the stone tablet method with intermediate corrections to a "living" system where rules are assessed on a cycle and reissued as clean integrated documents that are self contained. We are getting close to the same level of forum posts say so and clarification bloat that we hoped to avoid at the end of N2.
And the thing is, the Aristeia rules are pretty tight. So I know that CB *can* put together a well-presented ruleset.
YOU TAKE THAT BACK! I do got to admit that Infinity has a surprisingly reverential community when I am much more used to players that are loving of the game but critical of the designers and more then willing to roast them for inconsistent or odd choices in design. Despite the games age, Infinity feels like a game just starting to come into it's own. I find that pretty exiting but expect growing pains as the game transitions (Sometimes kicking and screaming) from a casual game to a more competitive rules set. I suspect Hecaton is probably correct in his assessment of how we got the odd ruling but I suspect even if he is right for that to be ignored or maybe even for some people to double down on the ruling. It was an odd and confusing rule in a game that is already pretty confusing but I am not going to lose any sleep over it.... unlike say engage ARO getting pinned to a wall climbing. I don't think it has been that long from there last FAQ, but I agree we are in need of a pretty big FAQ/errata update as soon as possible.
I am sorry I might not have been clear, no, warcors did not had any problem interpreting the text at all, I cannot remember anybody misinterpret the FAQ that way, they simply didn't like the change and its implications for 2W models. In any case it is what it is your 2W model goes to unconscious and cannot activate any of their special things that prevents it from staying conscious in the unconscious state.
This sort of simple clarification is most helpful, thank you. Other moderators (@ijw!) please be encouraged to post likewise, always Replying to members' comments; and quoting the rules or linking the Wiki pages in question whenever you make reference to them. Yes, the forum is overrun by Infinity Body Snatchers screeching at every suggestion that differs from the way their group 'believe they can make their interpretation from the rules' but really honestly - some of us just want to know what was intended by the design team and why; and what in the end, it finally means to us. Whether we want to play by the book or not, we all need a place to stand.
It took over 2 years for this to get an answer it came up in 2015, this specific question and we were informed it would be answered the exact opposite on how it has now come down almost out of no where the exact oppoiste way. This wouldn't be the first time where an answer was given, even a 'faq', then eventually the implications were fully realized and it was reversed/changed. The more this type of thing happens the more out of touch the writers of the faq appear with the rules.
