Back when we were approaching N4, the declared intention of the new edition was to streamline the rules and make the game easier (in the right sense). I was very excited by this declaration as an owner of a cupboard worth of CB minis, I could only support bringing some clarity and removing some excessively complex rules. Right now, looking at this new FAQ, though, I fail to see how it supports the declared direction for N4. Now, looks like, we have 2 new cases: 1. MSV1 and smokes now interact differently based on various circumstances, so we have -6 or -3 mod (not counting the sixth sense) depending on being active or reactive trooper and being the target of the attack. 2. Even more troubling, seems like all direct and impact template weapons now require checking all the conditions at declaration of attack, not in the end (which was kinda the direction we moved before). It implies that we cannot use such weapons to counter strong camo/mimetism models in CQC - in ZoC and behind total cover, they can now just declare BS attack, force us into sub-optimal ARO (dodge or BS attack with a likely weak weapon) and then move out of total cover, having a beneficial f2f roll against us. IMHO, this is counter intuitive, unneccessary complex AND touches a lot of balance in the game. Regardless of how I feel about both changes - after all, it's a subjective matter - I can't fathom why such things casually go into FAQ without any presentation, explanation and facilitation. What effects did you guys want to get? What were the goals? What are your further plans? I'm not going to push my opinion on game design and balance - I'm just a player. However, as a player, I expect changes that affect my experience with the game to be explained and presented and big changes, to be explained and presented in some detail. Did you mean to nerf warbands? Fine - at least state it so we know what direction we're moving. And - if this was the intention - why do you do it at the expense of rules complexity, by introducing more exceptions and contradicting the N4 concept of streamlining everything. I'm probably sounding salty, and I'm sorry for that. But I love this game, and I'm really concenred if there is any real direction here anymore and if you guys actually care to resolve the issues still remaining in N4 rules. Yes, infinity will always be a difficult game, and it's fine. But probably it should not take a bunch of players and forum experts to deduce what the hell you were trying to achieve this time. Any clarity would be greatly appreciated. Thank you :-)
I was really hoping we'd have seen the living ruleset by now. Some of these changes might be easier to understand if they were part of an overall document instead of edits to an existing document, added on to other edits. Also, the wiki hasn't been updated with the last FAQ, let alone this FAQ, so there's nowhere we can see the rules in one place. We have to look at the wiki for the base rule, then at several different places in the FAQ for the modifications to the rule. And, we also still desperately need @ijw or someone else with his authority to resolve remaining and new ambiguities in the rules. There are plenty of new ones, e.g. can you declare BS Attack from a point you intend to occupy later in the order? The FAQ system has never been enough on its own, it only worked when we also had @ijw to answer questions between FAQs.
The LVO Studio Update implied that the FAQ was to just cover us until the upcoming Living Rulebook. Hopefully it shall be soon. And I second the need for an official CB rules guru to communicate with the community on a regular/scheduled basis.
Frankly it doesn’t help when the attitude on the forums is periodically “Well, the rules don’t say they players are allowed to breathe, so we have to seriously consider that CB wants us to suffocate during a game.” :-/
This most recent update is such a sloppy mess. I have no interest in seeking out a game until the changes are reversed. I'm mad about the minelayer change, but the DTW ARO change makes the game an unplayable rules lawyering mess. Here's how to fix the minelayer thing: Upon placing a model or marker, it is compulsory to check ZoC. After checking ZoC, you place your next model/marker. At any point after checking the ZoC of a model or marker its placement is inelligible, it's automatically removed from play. As for the DTW bit? I don't know. Roll it back and change the DTW alt mode on shotguns to something else if that's the problem (and it is).
The behaviour of members of this Forum drove IJW into retirement as a rules guru. The abusive messages and demands caused him to hand in his badge. I'm not surprised no one else in CB has been willing to pick up the reigns.
I'm fine with extreme rule lawyers offing themselves this way. I'm already on the record saying that the government should pass a law making it mandatory to breathe just so various crazies immediately suffocate just to spite the establishment.
No doubt you're right, but that's an issue that could be solved with better moderation. (Along with a LOT of other issues on the forums.) Not explaining the rules at all isn't really a viable solution, and punishes the innocent majority more than it punishes the guilty (who, as @A Mão Esquerda points out, are probably happier this way).
OP should have mentioned minelayer, which has a large negative effect and a very small positive one, and perhaps a poll for people to register how they feel on the changes would have been good. Game just seems to get less intuitive, to the point where I barely know what I'm doing any more. Combined with how I feel about "free stuff edition" ITS and how big alpha is and my interest in the game is getting lower and lower, which is really sad. I just can't help but feel that whoever created these changes did not think them through or playtest them enough before putting them into an official FAQ. And a huge +1 from me for an explanation for any rules change. If they want to make corner guards worse thats fine, but I sincerely believe that just happened as a random side effect of changing rules targeting something else (in this case, CC preempts). This. I'm taking a few weeks off to see how this plays out. If its really as bad as it looks I might chill for longer
Hey guys, I tried to assemble current shooting through smoke rules into a flowchart diagram. Please correct me if something is wrong here Assumptions: 1. Sixth Sense works not only in Reactive turn but whenever you are a target of an attack through zero visibility zone and/or out of LoF. This does not seem to be corrected by any FaQ, so we can straight ahead say that if someone with MSV1 is shooting at your 6th sense trooper, regardless of who's active and who's reactive, you will get your chance to shoot back without penalties. 2. Whenever 6th sense is not present, but there is MSV1, the MSV trooper will shoot in ARO as if through a low vis zone (-3), since FaQ states that you treat smoke as a poor vis zone (penalty -6) and MSV1 allows to treat it as low vis zone instead. But! Only in ARO, for some weird reason, since FaQ states so explicitly as well.
Unfortunately you're wrong here. Sixth Sense works on ZERO Visibility Zones and shots at you outside LoF. With this FAQ, if you are shot at, you treat ZERO Visibility Zone as POOR Visibility Zone. That makes MSV1 behave differently in different conditions, up to the funniest moment that if you are shooting someone through smoke, if the person dodges, you get -6, and if shoots back, you get just -3 cause it's Poor Visibility Zone for you now. MSV2/3 are unchanged. Non-MSV linked ARO (or single model with sixth sense) now has -6 when responding to shots through smoke. Sixth Sense explicitly works on ZERO vis zone, but as per FAQ when you're shot through smoke, it's now a Poor Visibility Zone for you. On a funny note, the MSV1/2/3 ARO with sixth sense can still respond to attacks through White Noise without any negative mods, because White Noise Zone remains a no-LoF zone for visors. Confused already? You're welcome :)
Whats making dodge a -3? Visibility zone rules exempt dodge from all penalties related to those zones.
Only upside to all of this is that local groups and tourney organizers will get better at setting houserules to make the game playable, since failing to do so leaves the game too broken to play. That's the way we had to do it back in N2. It made the games more fun, and lead to more agreement and less cheesy ruleslawyering crap. N4 has a much better structure and would work fine if a few poor decisions were reversed (like this DTW one), so it will be a lot easier to set up, say, a half-dozen houserules and have a playable game.
Wait, how does Sixth Sense nerf make any sense? We still have on that very FaQ the following bullet: That makes it rather clear to me that Sixth Sense overrides MSV1 if you're being shot at through a zero vis zone, which also implies that a pure 6th trooper still can shoot back without -6 even if lacking MSV. Also, following your logic, since White Noise is a zero vis zone for MSV carriers which means it's treated as a poor vis zone for MSV carriers which means MSV+Sixth Sense trooper would have... a corresponding reduced penalty while shooting through it? So, for MSV1 it's -3, for MSV2+ it's 0? So, effectively, Sixth Sense does nothing with the Smoke or White Noise at all. And yes, it is stated explicitly that it's Zero vis zone attacks that can be treated differently: But, if CB'd really intended for 6th sense to stop working with a Zero Visibility Zone, they would have removed the paragraph above from the rules altogether rather than leave it there while there are no cases anymore that it can be applied to, wouldn't you agree? TLDR: I still think the diagram above is the most precise explanation for what CB wanted to describe in the new FaQ. Sixth Sense should allow responding to any attacks without penalties other than actual visibility/suppressive fire mods.
