Oh man, you know what, you are right - this post is fantastic Wuji! I think you need to really hammer Psycho to swing the banhammer at the shitposters. Just don't take no for an answer. This forum is falling into disrepair and disrepute because of some terrible people and I think you are the only one he will listen to.
Why is sarcasm your go to. If you want me banned, then support my efforts to get a ban policy in place. I know who I am and that I can control my actions. If you feel the same way about your self then go ahead and support a push for bans. But then the eye looks everyone the same way. If you're ready for that, let go...
Please describe to me an example regarding holoechoes using my suggested method that gives a baited effect instead of the intended effect of holoechoes? As for premeasuring, CB had to give it 1 or 2 FAQs ago, and keeping premeasurkng to ZoC is reasonable considering all the things you can do once in ZoC. Plus, holding ARO for ZoC AROs helps this. But I really am serious, please give me examples, if I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong, dont tell me, I can't read your mind. And who knows, you might teach me that my logic on this is wrong, all I ask is that you be open to the same...
What I've been implying is the current system of Declaration without requirements is flawed in it's very nature. That's why it needs so many FAQs, that's why it keeps resulting in some sort of baiting. The incidental Idle is just a bandaid. This system seems to support game play of trying to trick your opponent, and some units that have more than 1 kind of good attack have an advantage in this gaming of others. My point is, I like there to be an option for an FAQ, but not this incredible demand for one so damned often. I say scrap this system of turning things into idle and not meeting Reqs before Decs. I dont mean to hurt peoples feeling if this does hurt peoples feelings but the desired goal is foreseeably unachievable with this system due to the nature of order expenditure because everytime CB ever wants to make something new, it seems like it will have to get an FAQ which will cause the need for another FAQ. Get rid of what doesnt work and keep what does. My suggestion of keeping Reqs before Decs and playing ZoC AROs like AROs against camo, as far as I can tell is the cleanest I've seen. Maybe I'm wrong, show me examples how I'm wrong is all I'm asking.
I'm not gonna lie, but as presented "unified system" sounds like a sales pitch for CB to abandon the project. Writing a rule set that doesn't need FAQs to be playable and that isn't just cut off from corporate support is going to require a huge amount of playtesting that has nothing to do with game balance and it needs to be done in a manner that the playtesters don't get indoctrinated in rules interpretations. It is in other words a huge cost up front and from a business point of view that doesn't make sense with how much costs need to be recovered and what sort of business practices that involved. Add to it that whether you like it or not, CB's FAQs since N4 release are reducing the number of exceptions. The issue with what you're suggesting is precisely like @WiT? intimates, that it doesn't come with a suggestion for how things are meant to be instead. For example, treating requirements as pre-requirements has the tiny issue of needing (in the most literal sense) all skills to come under review and likely a majority of skills to be re-written so that the pre-requirements are actually in the pre-requirements not to mention that the rules still need to solve how to treat measurements and the information handling surrounding that. As an example of what I mean is Place Deployable with these requirements Have a Weapon or piece of Equipment with the Deployable Label. In the Reactive Turn, LoF to the Active Trooper is required. That's... not functional requirements for the system you ask. Where are the requirements for selecting a spot inside Zone of Control when using Perimeter Weapons? The whole section on placement near a camo Marker needs to be moved up. Speaking of, since placement near a camo Marker now would be part of pre-requirements you need to deal with how to figure that out before the player declares the skill. Deployment phase special conditions probably needs to be moved as well. There might be more, but this is the type of stuff you need to do to all skills due to how CB has gradually migrated from a fluid text block style of rules writing to sectioning them up and then trying to keep a system where players declare intent and then resolve them. So no, I do not think a "unified system" as defined is desirable. I would prefer the living rulebook style which is the direct opposite, where changes are directly implemented into the rules.
This is a good response. But like I said, as far as I can tell, my suggestion falls on the original rules before N4 and then treating ZoC AROs the same as against the markers state works because ZoC is the most problematic area on the board. Allowing people to wait till the end of the order to declare an attack if they dont have LoF in the middle of the order cleans up alot if not eberything, this ensures that no one gets baited into being attacked for free or at some huge disadvantage, this also allows for the introduction of any new skills with the liklihood of not needing an FAQ for them. If someone decides to to just walk in front of a troop who declared hold ARO, they get shot. I would really like for anyone to give me an example using the system I suggested where it fails, where it provides a bait or some unfairness, anywhere where it would seem the reactive player or even the active player is getting cheated. Oh and sorry, to answer your example which didnt seem like a real example because why would rules for place deployable change? You still need a valid ARO, LOf is a valid ARO, then place deployable either in sil contact or in ZoC if it is a perimeter weapon. What's the problem. I think you're mistaking what I'm saying to scrap. I'm saying scrap the you can declare whatever skill or aro and we'll see if its valid later, that's it. That is the system. The skills them selves arent wrong, I dont know where you got that from but that is not what I said.
Oh and I like a living rule book too but I'd like it for new rules not change others when a new rule is implemented with unforeseen consequences, not saying get rid of FAQs either, sometimes errors to pop up, and they need help but being honest this system is error prone and through and through. I dont think anyone should look down on CB if they backtracked on this declare skill you hope you get to do, nobody enjoys getting getting baited. For instance, seems like peripherals in this new FAQ got a buff. My suggestion prevents the reactive troop from being tricked into choosing not only the wrong ARO but the wrong target. Sorry not sorry. I like fairness far more than novelty.
And think about it this way. If a CC guy with Stealth nears a corner, when he declares dodge for second skill, he Grant's an ARO for you to dodge. If they dont have Stealth, you had at least 8 inches of orders to declare dodge before he even gets near the corner. Same for a Stealth hacker or pherowear or whatever vs non stealth for granting AROs. My suggestion works.
Lol, I'll try. Originally I didnt give a suggestion, I left it open to be broad and just talk about system approaches because let's be honest, this forum has turned to shit and yet i was still trying to get people to try to make the game better by leaving the poll as a general question. I failed that it seems but I tried in subsequent post to clean it up, the point was to find out how willing people are to want to stay with a heavily flawed system or willing to scrap it for an inherently sound one. But wit told me to give a suggestion cause no one here can be please with anything, so I gave the one I've concluded several weeks back. Iirc, you once also said you prefer meeting reqs before decs too. The problem was that still leaves the ZoC issue, of which as far as I can tell, treating ZoC AROs like AROs against camo markers solves all the problems.
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. What is a "unified system"? The first post with the poll was very vague and didn't define what it is. But now you're talking about an alternative solution, is that still linked with the poll?
Since the poll is apparently poorly worded, forget about it. Remember that meeting requirements before making declarations had the fewest problems but still had some ZoC issues?
I'm not being sarcastic. The more people taking Psycho to task, the more likely something will change. And I think you are uniquely positioned to argue for the banning of problematic users - no, scratch that, to demand their banning. It just carries more weight coming from you.
And you say you're not being sarcastic yet you keep poking and prodding. I think it's because you know nothing will happen to you...
There are no pokes or prods or whatever in that post. I don't think you are being fair here Wuji - you should consider if you are controlling yourself or letting your biases take over.
Right now youre literally saying the same thing I did like 10 posts ago and you were continually being sarcastic the last two even though I brought it up to you all the way in the beginning. That's on you not me.
I think speculative threads suggesting new rules, rules changes and rules overhauls, do not fit on the rules forum were people simply want to find out how rules actually work. I do believe the subforum needs some cleaning up, I will see if a separate subforum can be approved for such activities.
How am I being sarcastic? Please ask yourself if it is possible that you are letting bias cloud your judgement here. I'm wondering if there is anything I can say that won't simply be labelled sarcasm and ignored. That would be very unfortunate. That would be really cool actually.
Thata really what focused on, and that deserves red print, that this is in the wrong channel. Despite the reporting... see why I said favoritism. And that's why people act like shit here...
What makes you think you are the only forum member making threads about changing, adapting or revising rules of the game? or posting on actual rules questions thread proposing rules changes? The recent FAQ just introduced several such items and I think they add way more static to a subforum they technically do not belong to. Real question is were they belong until a specialized thread is approved for them.
