Just because you do not know how to shorten and clear up the rules at the same time doesn't mean it's not possible. Infinity is not consistent with the words it uses. This is not a language or translation issue, it's a structural one. Instead of using the same exact word when referencing something, it uses different words and phrases. Almost like a writer would for a story. But instructions are not stories. This is why i've mentioned programming in the past. Good instructions have far more in common with programming. Think about it... if people can write near flawless instructions a brainless PC can follow, why can't we do the same for ourselves? If the movement components of skills like Dodge sometimes function separately, why nest these skills together? Once you nest them you lose some control over them. You can no longer give one trooper a dodge without a move unless an exception is made and explained. Which is dangerous if done poorly, this one was done poorly. It also renders the reason it was nested together pointless if the goal was to make things easier. Plus there is always the danger of future exceptions and more convoluted explanations. It's far more accurate to use precise/unique identifiers when building the structure of your rules and simply pointing to them(writing them) when you want to address them. Visuals help as well. There is no potential language issues here. The player clearly knows what rule is being referenced. All that's left now is for the developer to explain it properly and use other identifiers as necessary.
I fixed that for you. Are you willing to comment on the cheeseburger analogy? How about turning around as part of Change Facing, is that disallowed?
FFS, what is allowed and what is not it is stated in the rules. Do you realize you are the only one claiming your side?
You fixed nothing. The rules say first "you may declare Dodge" then they say "you may not move". How hard is that going to be to understand, it's very basic sequential reading?
@Ginrei Please rewrite the Foxhole rule so that is clear to your standards so that we might see an example of the unambiguity that you want.
At the risk of fanning these flames if you check the text for change facing it clearly differentiates between turning around and moving, it seems fair to carry that distinction through to the foxhole text. Change Facing works like the Dodge Skill in Reactive Turn, but the Roll to use it is PH-3 and the user does not get to Move on a success, only turn around so that the active enemy is inside his LoF.
Close, but the question still remains, do you get to turn around? It says you don't get to Move, i assume referring to the 2", but you can turn around. So while it identifies the difference between the skills, it doesn't indicate if Turning Around is considered a movement. Which is extremely important if we're supposed to be applying these rules correctly. I like how you continue to conveniently leave out the next line, here are the steps: doesn't allow its user to perform any type of movement (but can declare Dodge. Troopers are not allowed to move in the Reactive Turn, only to dodge the Attack). The last two statements are nearly identical to the first two. You have to make an assumption that "only to dodge the attack" specifically means more than it says. Players use the Dodge skill all the time specifically to dodge attacks. When doing so, they get to move. Tell me, is there another line after the last saying the trooper can't move again? How about telling me exactly what a 'move' is in Infinity? Does turning around constitute a move? I'd like to, but doing so to the point some might understand, or possibly agree, means seeing the effects across more than one single rule. Forest through the trees etc. I'll give it some thought, and if i can think of a simple way to show it, i'll do so. Because if i don't get it quite right... i know it's not going to go over well based on the responses so far.
Why do you always have to bring your argument to some convoluted food analogy? These things aren't equal and in no way shape or form are they comparable.
Then ignore the analogy and show some evidence using the actual rule, Or how about answering my questions directly. I've asked very relevant questions that show gaping holes in the rules yet they are ignored. Start with this: Is 'turning around' a type of movement? Based on that answer, can you turn around when Change Facing in a foxhole? Change Facing says you don't get to Move, i assume referring to the 2" as it compares itself to Dodge, but you can turn around. So while it identifies the difference between the skills, it doesn't indicate if Turning Around is considered a movement. Which is extremely important if we're supposed to be applying these rules correctly.
Not true... How can you say that?? I find myself quite in agreement with Ginrei. The point is not to criticize... Is to stimulate a constant improvement in the way the rules are written. I cannot find a single word not pointing in that direction in the following quoted Ginrei's post. Mask
It would appear the the General Movement rules define altering your facing as something distinct from movement, but that can happen as a result of movement. The bold is from the text. After Moving one of your figures, you can leave it facing any direction. The change facing rule as quoted above also appears to draw a distinction between moving and altering facing by spinning in place. Additionally, if we look at Warning we see: Warning! allows the trooper to spin, without changing its position, to modify the arc of his LoF so the attacker is within it. Which also draws a distinction between spinning in place and changing your position on the table. Based on these data points, I would conclude that spinning in place does not constitute moving and would therefore be permitted by the Foxhole state. Edited: To include Warning
I don't agree with those conclusions atm. And I do appreciate the effort in sticking to the facts. But I couldn't find the warning you're referring to. Have a link please? ATM I don't see turning as being distinct. Telling players they can leave a trooper facing any direction after a move means nothing other than you can leave it facing any direction. That action is an optional part of a movement and I see no connection between that and Change Facing and more specifically the act of turning or facing.
Thanks, I actually see more there to support my point than yours. It also goes to show how Infinity loves to use different phrasing lol. Warning! allows the trooper to spin, without changing its position, to modify the arc of his LoF so the attacker is within it. This is an automatic movement which doesn't require any Roll. It's calling a spin an automatic movement. And if you assume Spin is a form of Change Facing/turning around... it stands to reason they are all forms of movement and thus illegal in a Foxhole.
This is another great example of the issues i'm referring to about the rules. Many of you may think the ruling on Dodging in a foxhole is clear and the movement component is not allowed. But the ramifications of how that ruling is made causes ripples elsewhere. I don't see why the same ruling preventing movement via dodging doesn't apply to movement via change facing. At some point it might turn out you can clearly turn around via change facing... but how long does it take to prove this? It says a lot about the rules.
Fair play on that one, Warning contributes more to confusion than clarity. You know, I gotta say that in so much as I think I get your point, I don't think your're going to find satisfaction here. These rules simply can't stand up to the rigor of your metric that a computer should be able to follow them literally with no context. But then I can't think of a minis game that isn't a computer game that can meet that standard (which doesn't mean they don't exist). That being said, I think there's is a far divide between "a computer can't follow along using only RaW" and an unplayable mess. But I admittedly lost track of the thread here and i don't even know if you're suggesting they're an unplayable mess. The rules can definitely benefit from some codification and some unified terminology. They can definitely bet tightened up and made to be less vague or ambiguous. But that we're here having this discussion and that people are able to play the game internationally means that the rules at least work well enough that people can play the game and enjoy it. You would like to see tighter rules. I would like to see tighter rules and I'm sure many folks here do, so at this point I have to ask, what are we arguing about?
You're correct that I'll likely not find satisfaction here. It's the internet after all. The argument continues because I feel many posters are dismissing the issues entirely. Either with poor arguments, calling me a troll, or claiming common sense. I'd enjoy it if they admitted this particular rule is not clear and/or can cause valid issues. In a vacuum some issues may appear innocuous but once you take a closer look it's not so simple.
Human perception being the subjective mess that it is, I think you'll find that not only is there a broad spectrum between "clear" and "clear enough to be acceptable" but that even defining those two things is impossible. But I'm probably stating the obvious.
