I think by this point nomads and ALEPH might edge combined out in terms of bullshit unique rules. However, I know this feeling well. I actually like unique rules that give flavor to factions. What I don't like is bullshit "gotcha" interactions like the whole climbing plus+CC thing or the silly thing about "shooting at the back from the front" debacle.
Is there a thread on these issues? I feel like people are talking about them like everybody knows what the problem is, but I'm not aware of it.
Shooting in the back from the front is in FAQ version 1.2 from way back in July 2016 http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Line_of_Fire_(LoF)#FAQ but is well illustrated in this thread from the rule section : https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/lof-to-rear-arc-issue.25590/ I never heard of "climbing plus+CC" being a problem discussed in the rule section. Not sure if he was talking of "Engage and wall placement" which is a thread in the rule forum from this September. The old forum had a "climbing plus+Engage" argument that if you engage an enemy that is climbing a wall, should you stop at the base of the wall or will you keep following him up the wall ? The problem being that if you are on the wall without Climb+ (because of engaging a model or because you've ended your turn still climbing) then you cannot ARO back during following CC. The extension of that ruling (that yes you'll follow) was that if the engaged model had climbing+ and could have gone up a wall, then you can place the engaging model in base contact on the wall even if the engaged model stayed on the ground. I don't think there is a single recap thread, but there are several threads in the rule forum about various debates.
I saw a comment about the climbing plus+CC thing for the first time in a thread about fighting ASS in the Combined army part of the forum a good five or six months ago. From then on I see it pop up every now and then, and I think there's a thread about it on the rules forum. The thing is: using those weird interactions to win or gain an advantage always felt too close to cheating for my liking. Which is why I don't use these interactions. However, whether or not these situations should even be in the game to begin with is an issue for the developers, not me to decide. My opinion is the rules need to be clearer, of course.
If you have to stop the game and read through 4 forum pages, or 3 rulebook pages, or 2-3 wiki pages to understand a rule, it does show the situation is either too obscure to comprehend or the game rules are getting too convoluted. Besides, the biggest problem isn't that these odd interactions exist, is that some people are actively seeking them out in order to break the game or at least get an advantage. This is not a healthy way to develop a community. Sure, seeking ways to improve the game should be done and players who find these odd interactions should even be praised for helping us iron out what could be problems. However, once it becomes the norm to understand these minute details and have hours long discussions about rules, we become too insulated and lose new players and potential new players. There has to be a balance, and right now it does feel like the situation is tipping towards "overcomplicated". Even if the core set of rules remains quite simple to learn and teach.
I recall there being a very straight forward answer from Palanka about Engaging a Climb+ model that moves up on a wall: the Engage fails, provided the active model ends their order still climbing. What thing? I'm sorry, but you make no sense.
You are most probably right, but all I do know is this post from Palanka quoting ToadChild without further comment : " I would say that the Ninja is Climbing + Engaged, and cannot legally declare a CC or Dodge. Next time think carefully before following a Lasiq up a wall! " http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...a-climber-plus/?do=findComment&comment=667609 So if I understood his lack of comment but simple quote, he agrees that Ninja followed the Lasiq Climb+ in the sense that when the Ninja Engage Lasiq who moves up a wall the Ninja moved up too.
Engage needs a strong, really, really strong review. For the moment the answer looks like yes. Another negative issue about engage.
Gotcha is a good term for what it means (to my understanding), which is using obscure rules and/or rules that your opponent does not know to surprise them. It's gamey and makes your opponent's experience worse.
Yes and no. Infinity has a lot of 'WTF, you can do that?!?' rules that are unusual for a tabletop minis game. Like Tactical Jump. Or hidden deployment. Or hell, even just being able to spend multiple orders on one model. The first time someone sees those things, they're likely to lose the game right then and there. It's the job of the player doing the Gotcha to teach the noob how to deal with it. The first time I spent lots of orders on a single model, that TAG ate 8/10 models all by himself. Shot 2 guys face-to-face, then was behind the line and shot everyone else in the back from well outside ZOC, so no ARO possible.
I think the LoF FAQ is probably a good example of the game getting unnecessarily messy. Before, LoF was intuitive and simple. It was still meaningful and the onus was in the active player to navigate LoF for juicy normal rolls. If you faced forward and got attacked from the front, you got to return fire. But models behind you shot you on the back. Now it doesn't make sense and setting up LoF arcs is much more on the reactive player and much harder to not unintentionally leave an angle to get shot in "the back", sometimes from an attacker approaching from in front but just strategically using terrain to obscure your LoF. Now if that's what CB wants then sure. But right now it's easy to miss, hard to visualise and takes a few (imo) bad experiences to appreciate.
The other thing about Engage, is you just need to be standing *near* a wall to screw someone with this - just put them on a wall near you, with the top of their silhouette in contact with yours while you're standing where you're standing, and then beat them down with the unable to react.
As much as i agree i do think there is a difference between things that are easily found in the rules if you actually look for them. (Hidden deployment for example). Or something that you can only know about if you spend nonsensical time on the forum. And even about Hidden deployment and Combat Jump troops i usually tell my opponents how they work while and before playing their first games. Not after i bludgeoned them down in a 2 hour game with my hidden deployment beatsticks. I would even advise to anyone trying to get new people in to play the first games without hidden information just so i can explain openly what which unit can do while we play.
Nobody needs to know all the rules of a game in order to play the first games. That is why usually games have two sets of rules, basic and advance. You can tell any new players about the bunch of options are in Infinity, but not how everyone works. For first steps is better avoid strenge rules like hidden deployment or Combat Jump or Hacking. Too the more exotics weapons and ammunitions. I saw in my town so many times people trying to show the game to new players including all the amazing rules of his army: mmal3,TO,CO,minelayer,MultiSnipperRifle,hacker,TAG,REM, etc. etc. And of course, he win the game. As result: the new player left the game before start. Yes, Infinity are not a simple game, but the main concepts are really really easy to learn. Probably in the next edition we will see some more simplified but still complex.
I don't usually try to engage models. The point of the game being to shoot the ever loving shit out of the enemy (yay PanO!). 4th Edition soon, then? (Not N4, because these abbreviations are really lame)
