Well CB, I was going to save post 1,000 for a full write-up on Ramah Task Force and an argument for why you should put down other games to play Infinity. Unfortunately this FAQ has made khawarij substantially less viable while directly contradicting the previous FAQ detailing why it was impossible to protect two corners of the same building when facing a wall. This ruling goes against real math and therefore will be harder to explain in a reasonable manner to any players who question it. I feel this measure has been taken with good intent on CB’s behalf - they just want people to have fun playing their game. That’s wonderful! But for me, this reduces the amount of tactical movement options both players have in game and therefore detracts from the game itself. Due to the behaviors demonstrated by some warcors and popular players in private settings, I feel this ruling came about because a small amount of people had loud enough voices. This indicates a management team that caters to the whims of toxic community members and doesn’t take the time to understand the actual needs of their game and their community. I will no longer be recommending this, or any other CB game to gamers in the communities I frequent. In my opinion, you’ve limited yourselves and are on the path to dismantling what a great game Infinity was. - OG signing off.
I'm still of the opinion that shooting someone in the back whilst being in front of them was an exploit and unintended. Unless this is some very elaborate sarcasm...
EDIT : Ok ... now reading it again I'm 100% sure it was sarcasm. Pretty funny actually once you got it.
This is a hot take if I've ever seen one – I'm sorry you feel this way but you have to recognize that on whole this leads to less NPE and that's probably a good thing
you really think the only thing making Khwarij's viable was the abillity to shoot people without them ever getting an ARO? oO
if you see me i see you, is a core concept and easy to understand. I only see you if you are in my front arc is also an intuitive easy to understand concept. You are in front of me, but you only see my rear because a wall is blocking, therefore i don't see you, felt quite counter intuitive to me when it was recently ruled to be played like that. I agree with that change. Also from the thread title, i thought it would be about super-jumping into CC, and taking a swing mid-air (just like you can BS Attack at any point of movement), before falling down. I like this faq that prevents this. And prevent also super-jumping (because of impetuous), receiving a swing mid-jump, and falling down. The enemy can't swing at you if you don't end your movement still in CC.
Man, I had not read the FAQ yet and at first I thought you were mad that the whole "shooting at your back from the front" thing was still a thing Are you mad that it isn't??
its not fully I see you you see me. Its only that if you are at all within the front half of their base. You still get shot in the back if you arent, as is right
No shooting in the back of the cylinder from the front from Khawarij is a great change. It will in no way stop me from fielding Khawarij by the bucketload. I think that OldGregg was saying that the reason for the change was indicative of listening to a noisy minority by CB and that decision is a slippery slope, which is why he's signing off. I'd be surprised to learn that it's really a minority who think that that tactic was good for the game though!
Yeah, it's just too bad they endorsed Yojimbo chopping people in the back arc without them getting an ARO.
DistractionKoalas are now a reality. Just ask any Australian - it's not the koala you see that kills you...
Okay, so this is another well-written and nicely provocative post from @oldGregg, and I certainly agree that, since Corvus Belli have deliberately designed Infinity to be unusually dramatic, risky and confrontational, there's little sense in their paying too much attention to anxious young boys who get upset when half their man-dollies are dead by the end of the second turn. On the other hand, I am in agreement with @Brother Smoke that some of this is slightly puzzling I think I've read the appropriate section of the new FAQ, and that it categorically applies the extant 'shooting in the back from the front' rule to Super Jump. Can someone confirm or deny that, and maybe quote the relevant section of the new FAQ 1.6, explain the unit (and similar others); the preferred tactic and why the ruling is arguably deleterious, thank you? [Watchwolf Rules Disclaimer: I don't fucking care what the rule means, because I'm old enough to ask my opponent if we want to throw it out or keep it in. I only care that we understand what it means so that we can actually do that!]
@Wolf The example in the FAQ shows a LOF drawn over an intervening wall that goes into the back of arc of the target, and specifically states that there is reciprocal LOF, which is the opposite of the extant shooting in the back from the front rule with Super-Jump. It's illustrated on P14. Unit, tactic, deleterious... not sure what you mean. It doesn't talk about those things in the FAQ. People playing Infinity had and/or have opinions on how the super-jump LOF impacts play...?
Thanks for the correction, I misspoke myself there. To summarise for my own clarity and for the record: my understanding is that the previous rule was that a unit could shoot another in the back from the front, and not also give them reciprocal Line of Fire. Whereas the FAQ says you can still do that (slightly strange thing) but that doing so now does give reciprocal LoF, and uses a jumping unit to illustrate that ruling. Is that correct? Well, I presumed he likes that unit in particular because Super Jump can be used to exploit shooting in the back from the front, but I'd hoped someone more familiar with the faction, the unit, its relative cost-value and that tactic could describe it better than me for the record. Yeah, we all thought that shooting a unit in the back from the front was bollocks, didn't we? For myself, I've been happy to waive it if my opponent didnt like it, but also expected to be required to play it in ITS; but that's just me and rules, as usual - I can tell the difference between what a rule actually is, and what id personally like it to be.
