1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Executive Order update is terrible and should be rolled back.

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Nimlothautle, Oct 16, 2019.

  1. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    I'm not sure I understand. You want CB to make consistent FAQs/Rulings but they can't go against what the majority of players are playing? Whats the point in having an FAQ/Errata system if game designers are hamstrung by the general opinions of the community? Beyond that how are they to determine what is the majority opinion?

    As an aside, I am somewhat skeptical that the majority of players have even ever seen an XO let alone play it a specific way. Given that its such a rare rule.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  2. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    I would agree, you are misrepresenting my argument, I did not say any of that.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  3. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    Alright so lets scrap any of my complaints and try and work through this again. I'd like to understand it.

    It sounds like your issue with this is similar to the problem people have had in the past with say the NWI + Multi Wound Vs. Shock ruling. In that its not the way people are playing the rule on the table top. Is that about right?

    And it sounds like part of the problem is that it wasn't even a question on your Radar?

    So you like that CB has been putting out more regular FAQs but you dislike some of the rulings coming out of them because they don't feel....what? Immeidiately relevant? Is that about right?

    Edit: Like Im picturing you're walking down the aisle in a grocery store and theres just randomly an aisle filled with say Air Compressors. Air Compressors are nice and all but they dont make sense in the grocery store it feels like a strange foreign object that has nothing to do with the groceries you were thinking about buying a few moments before.
     
    A Mão Esquerda and Nimlothautle like this.
  4. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    I get the feeling that some of the FAQ entries (like this and the one that temporarily made Shock ammo work against 2W models with NWI) are being driven by people outside of CB who have particular opinions; I know that CB seeks outside input for some, and WarCors who have aberrant interpretations of the rules may be being given a lot of clout.
     
    Dragonstriker and meikyoushisui like this.
  5. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    The FAQ that's since been removed was also just incorrect.
     
    Dragonstriker and meikyoushisui like this.
  6. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    I'm not in a good place to reply a big essay, but I appreciate you re-writing that and for taking the time to reply. Yes that is the gist of it.

    CB should be putting out regular updates and I am glad they are taking it more seriously as a priority. I think they should take more care as they go forward about how their clarifications can effect various the existing game. By not taking it as seriously before and by putting that responsibility on players and local metas, there is going to be some pain when putting 'the genie back in the bottle'. My meta was affected by this ruling which was effectively a rules change for us.

    And yes I don't think the change was immediately relevant or important and largely has a negative impact albeit small.
     
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Oh, the question WAS asked. We just got the answer no one was expecting.

    The question was "can XO use both LT2 orders or just the one for a normal LT1?"
     
    Section9, toadchild and Nimlothautle like this.
  8. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    1,529
    I can't say I agreed particularly with that FAQ but If CB is the ultimate authority on the rules and they said to play something some specific way. It may be an Errata over an FAQ but I'd argue that doesn't make it 'incorrect'. This is the double-edged sword of relying on CB to provide the only official/useable answer, as I will note you've aggressively pushed for in the past. They can't be both the only source of the rules and then also wrong when they make a decision because they are inherently the source of the rules.

    I think my questions are still valid then. I will try and reword to make them less confrontational though.

    Mahtamori has referenced that the question was raised on the forums right. So Question gets asked on the forums CB Notices it and goes "Hey thats not how that rules supposed to work." What do they do now?

    • Dont put out an FAQ/Errata/etc
      • And then people bitch and moan cause they aren't putting out FAQs.
    • Put out an FAQ/Errata/etc that clarifies CBs expectations for the rules
      • And people bitch and moan because it doesnt fit their expectation.
    • Put out an FAQ/Errata/etc that matches 'the common playing experience'*.
      • And the creation of the FAQs is not within their control so what is the point of them making them?
      • And the game isn't played in the way CB envisioned.
    * This also ignores the obvious issue of different metas or different groups arguing for different interpretations of the rules. But for simplicity let's assume a common consensus can be found for these rules.

    So I'll put it to you. You're CB and someone shows up with a question about a rule they are misplaying (from your perspective as the game creator). How do you fix their play without doing exactly what CB has done with this ruling? Because I honestly don't know what the alternative answer is.
     
    A Mão Esquerda and colbrook like this.
  9. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    They can when it's a FAQ. If they are explicitly stating it as an errata, a rules change, then no, they can't really be wrong. But if they're giving it as a clarification, then if they contradict the existing rules text, yeah, they're wrong.
     
    #69 Hecaton, Oct 23, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2019
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    Twofold response:

    1. Historically, CB has been sloppy about differentiating between FAQ and errata; some of the FAQs in the document are a lot closer to errata (like silhouette vs. base contact). They've added a new errata section where they have rewritten a couple of rules, which I applaud, but they haven't retroactively recategorized existing rulings.

    2. Which FAQ are you saying was wrong? The 2W+Shock+NWI one? The ruling they gave was perfectly consistent with the wording of the red box, and they have now issued an errata changing what the red box says in order to better match player expectations.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Well, I think it's also that a lot of the stuff they put in the FAQ isn't vetted properly and the person writing them either believes it is merely a clarification of the text or knows it isn't but hopes the community takes it tha tway.

    Nah, they were misinterpreting the red box and the bullet point list immediately preceding it.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  12. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    I'm not saying that the FAQ process couldn't use improvement (although I think the current system is a big step in the right direction) or that I agree with the old Shock+NWI ruling, but I'm re-reading the actual rules text and there's nothing that actually violated the rules-as-written.

    The base rule says shock goes straight to dead.
    The next set of bullet points give exceptions that prevent the death effect.
    The red box says it nullifies NWI.
    The ruling was that all of those combine to render the model unconscious.

    Anyway, it's kind of moot now since they (eventually) rolled back the ruling and issued an errata to the red box.

    Put me strongly in the camp of people who wants Important Red Box text to be strictly reminders, not top level rules content.
     
    Dragonstriker and TheRedZealot like this.
  13. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    It was never top level rules content. The red box was never meant to be applied to troopers that weren't affected by Shock Ammo; it's a clarification in that sense. Anyone on those bullet points is unaffected by shock ammo; it's not just preventing the death effect.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  14. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    On the one hand, I think the observation after watching companies like Games Workshop for twenty five years (or Privateer Press or Wyrd Games, etc. for fewer years) is that there's a function definition of the difference between errata and FAQ:
    • Errata: We're officially changing the wording of the rule.
    • FAQ: We're producing a statement (usually in a separate document) telling you how the rule works, whether it not that corresponds to what the rule says.
    Errata matter more for the developer when a document is going to be updated, or go through multiple generations of print runs. Or if you're looking at one of the war-games that uses cards with special ability rules on them (Malifaux, Guild Ball, Warmachine/Hordes, etc.). For those games, "This ability isn't being played correctly, what do we do?" really does depend on "Can you fit it on the card?"

    But even outside of that, errata are more work than FAQs, because of document layout and editing. (Especially if you've seen an errata "miss" by specifying the wrong textual change, without anyone catching it.)

    I hope some day it catches on with game companies (or becomes way more wide spread and recognized) that they need to hire one or more "live team" developers to partner with their regular developers. Instead of having the same people try to do both.
     
  15. krossaks

    krossaks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    574
    The point was to CB to fix the interaction between exectutive order and leutinent level 2. And they insted destroied Executive Order (or at least his main point).

    After this the discusion about the pheasnt good, acceptable or bullshit is just offtopic.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  16. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    it’s almost like you didn’t even read my response at all
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  17. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Sweet baby jeebus, THIS!


    Yup.

    Indicating that everyone asking the question had been playing XO as being able to use a LT order generated by someone else.

    And we get back "The XO can't use any LT order the turn he shows up."

    Interrogative Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, CB!!!
     
  18. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    If the overwhelming majority of players are playing a rule a certain way, that usually indicates that that is what the RAW says. It's unusual for like 95% of a community to play a rule wrong unless it's outrageously counterintuitive.

    The Red Box strikes again! The rules just need to do away with these altogether.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  19. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    They may have also messed with G: Mnemonica, since the new model selected is in fact a separate model and can't spend the LT order under this ruling. Aspect players better keep on top of spending their LT orders first or they'll risk losing them to an unlucky missile crit.
     
    Sedral likes this.
  20. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    I think that's just sound play regardless. Why use a resource from a shared pool when you still have the same resource all to yourself that no one else can use?
     
    toadchild and SpectralOwl like this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation