As a native spanish speaker I can assure you the spanish version of the rules is terribly confusing too.
I'm fairly confident the sheer amount of rule threads and discussion over the years points to a rules design issue more so than a player issue. I 100% believe a game can have great complexity while being extremely clear in how it's played. So I think it does matter how tight the rules are. Chess is a good example of a game where there is no interpretation in the rules. PC games like XCOM are very similar to Infinity and do not have these issues either. I love Infinity but rarely play anymore. The game/hobby itself is great and the minis are fantastic. I want to dive into the game and BUY MORE minis but i don't. Without the potential to play a solid match I lose interest in the hobby. I may never play another game as long as I live, but I would still invest and enjoy the hobby knowing someday I might. But as it stands, it's very difficult to invest in something I can't fully enjoy. Maybe I'm an outlier I don't know. If anyone at CB wants my money, I'm ready to buy and paint plenty of miniatures. But i need a rule set that isn't so open to interpretation. I also don't promote the game to my friends for this reason.
Xcom is cheating, though. I don't mean literally cheating (even though for Xcom2, it actually is), but it's cheating in that the complexity is handled by someone else*. It's like you're a noob playing on team with an old-timer who handles all the rules for you, all you need to do is tell the old-timer what you want to do and the old-timer will provide you with options and highlights and things to think about and then give a fancy narrative for each action. * And even then, with the most recent expansion performance significantly increased from Firaxis rewriting some 30% of the game engine code, which tells us that previously Xcom's rule set wasn't exactly all that clear cut, forcing the computer to run a whole lot of extra cycles for the same results. But it's something other than yourself doing the busy-work.
comparing a computer game with programmed moves and a finite amount of possibilities in a finite amount of pre-programmed levels and interactions to infinity, a tabletop game, is absolutely insane. even comparing it to chess is also a false equivalency as both sides start and end (in checkmate) in the exact same way. the rules have been around for literally thousands of years and a new edition has never really come out (although I'm sure it's evolved over time) both of these games are relatively simple when comparing it to a tabletop game where there are hundreds of models and different profiles all interacting with one another in quite literally, millions of different ways, and I can set the board up however I want. While I agree infinity has sloppy rules writing at times, it easily has one of the tightest rulesets for a tabletop game. If people discussing rules interpretations on a forum are deterring you from getting into a tabletop game I'm afraid you'll never actually get into one.
Yes, but I don't think that changes my point. A mindless machine has to be instructed what to do at the most basic level. There can be no room for interpretation. The Infinity rules can be written to a similar standard I have no doubt. Infinity has a finite number of possibilities I assure you. Each trooper can only perform so many actions. I see nothing insane about the comparison. I don't think any level of complexity is an excuse for sloppy rules. I don't expect CB to perfect at everything. What I do expect, are the rules for games I play to be much clearer than they are Infinity. I must strongly disagree that Infinity has one of the tightest rule sets. If that is actually true, i feel bad for all those other games out there. Where did I say these discussions were deterring me from getting into tabletop gaming? I've been tabletop gaming since the very early editions of Warhammer and never questioned a games play-ability because of how clear the rules are. What I did say/imply, is Infinities rules are far too open to interpretation and that is deterring me from playing.
you make it sound like sitting down and playing this game is like taking a test blindfolded. Have you ever actually played this game? Comparing infinity, or any tabletop game for that matter, to a video game is a non argument. Tabletop gaming is so much more dynamic. simply comparing the two because they're both games that are similar in spirit is like me trying to convince you my legs are better than a car for transportation because I understand the limitations of my legs and not that of a car. In no way are the rules of infinity unclear. these forums discuss the most corner case of scenarios that would maybe happen a couple times. ever.
Well I would sure love to have an artificial person shipped with every single copy of the game what would pop out and say "this is not how English/ Spanish are actually used", "this is not what it was written" ectr ectr, using a computer game as an example is a really bad example computer games interpret the game mechanisms themselves and the game designer can reliably (but not always see bugs and exploits) predict how the rules are interpreted because they ship the rules interpreter with the game. In tabletop wargames, we do not have the luxury of that, we must ship a document that contains the rules in a sensible format, within a logical space and in a logical size, nothing stop us to have 2 pages (or more) per skill listing all possible misinterpretation of the skill been used, except that nobody would read it and the rulebook would be the size of a phone-book and within these limitations we need to make as good attempt as possible to make two humans cooperate in interpreting the rules and playing the game, now add to that player bias (what other games player has played and how it has shaped their understanding of how rules should work), reading bias (how people think what they read means) and some bias because one interpretation however skewed gives an advantage and you have a nice explanation why rules can never be 100% perfect and why we need FAQ essentially patches to the rules interpreters. Now chess has more solid rules given it is a mechanically much simpler game, but when we delve in the less known rules of chess, well, then the proposition a tabletop game system can be flawless falls apart. Please understand we are humans designing a complex game engine to be played by humans, not machines, some of the questions raised have already or have been thought of but the space available has already been filled or we shorten some other entry to make one bigger because we believe the other entry will be more problematic, ultimately on some cases we must say that this is it and if it becomes an Issue we will make a FAQ for it, sometimes a FAQ is needed sometimes a FAQ is not needed sometimes a problematic entry never raised an issue sometimes entries we never expected to raise any issue do. Yes, it is frustrating for the players but they have to wait for the game engine patches (FAQ). We work on that front.
@psychoticstorm It's not about length, it's about clarity. I'm fairly certain that the Infinity ruleset could be made both more concise and more clear with some work. Moreover, if the rules were more clear, there wouldn't be a need for 9001 examples and clarifications.
Unfortunately, a *lot* of room in this case. Say what you want about Warmachine/Hordes, but that game had a tight ruleset.
Clarity comes with word-count (and proper formatting), examples are given when we thought showing a really complex interaction would generate less word-count than writing the interaction with further complexion in the rules.
Not necessarily. You don't have to add extra words if rules were properly worded and consistent with each other. Look at Arena Rex or X- Wing. Each rule is very short, as they are clearly written and aren't open for interpretation. Sure, they don't have as many of interactions as Infinity, but what is there is nailed down hard.
Word-count might be an issue, but it's not the issue. In fact I have found several cases where the rule is very clear and then there is an example that contradicts the rule or makes it nonsensical. Rules are just not very well written.
As someone who does both programming and rules mechanics, NOPE. Programming languages simply don't have the ambiguities of normal language, but even then a lot of programming time is spent fixing unintended bugs where the code doesn't do what you expected.
As a programmer who dabbled with Law, and who's father was a math teacher, i must disagree. Fixing unintended bugs within a program is like improving a set of rules with either FAQs or new editions is it not? However, it's the end product we're concerned with. Either one can be terribly designed and function poorly, or they can work almost flawlessly. You are correct that programming languages do not have to deal with ambiguity. Their advantage is not having to rely on a persons interpretation, which is the weakness of normal language. So it makes sense to me that rules built on normal language should aim to minimize this as much as possible. Careful planning and structure goes a long way. A set of game rules could learn a lot from programming languages. The possible actions that can be taken within Infinity is far more finite than has been suggested here. @Grimm pointed out the formatting. What do the red boxes actually indicate? Where do they fall in the rules hierarchy? Rules at the highest level should apply to everything below. Exceptions should be actively attacked until they no longer exist or are covered at the appropriate level. Clearly defined labels should be setup and used repeatedly. 'Dodge' and 'Special Dodge' are not examples of clearly defined labels. At no point should other words be chosen in their stead either. Doing so is essentially a programming mistake/bug. These mistakes are not examples of normal language being ambiguous or too open to interpretation. The word 'attack' is used far too casually in Infinity. Once a word/label is used it should define an action clearly. Infinity feels like it's using different programming languages to govern different parts of the rules. Consistency should be another goal. As @toadchild pointed out, having similar systems functioning in different ways just adds needless complication. That's not an example of ambiguity either, it's an example of poor structure/formatting. It's much easier to memorize one rule and apply it to all dmg rolls, than memorize two rules plus what situations each applies to. Does Infinity really need so many CC tables? Any one of the above issues would be acceptable on its own. But when so many are combined it creates a mess. The integrity of the games I play is important to me and the rules play a large part in that. I understand CB is run by humans and humans make mistakes. I can forgive mistakes. Unfortunately, there are just too many within Infinity's rules for me to justify investing anymore. Which is a shame, because I really want to. I'm a competitive person and it's tough to play that way when something as fundamental as private/open info is played differently person to person. Even knowing the correct rule in a given situation isn't enough. If I can't explain it to my opponents satisfaction, we have an issue. If I can't find the FAQ, we have an issue. It might be a failing of mine but these potential issues linger in my mind before a game even begins and lessens my enjoyment of Infinity.
As a professional software engineer, a lot of my job is based around the difference between what I meant and what I actually said. Much like complex game rules, you can have two independent pieces that both function fine, but interact in unexpected ways when run in the real world. I do agree with a lot of what you say about consistency, surprising no one.
