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

A dire need for patch notes

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Diphoration, Jun 16, 2021.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,054
    Likes Received:
    15,361
    I don't think anything's changed with Holomask logic. It goes to idle at step 5 when the owning player says there's private information that causes one or more requirements to fail.
     
  2. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    2,712
    Making that explicit would help those who are new to the rules, as well as prevent argument by obtuse players who miss that logic.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  3. SubOctavian

    SubOctavian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2020
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    73
    You have put it perfectly.
    I love the game (and the devs), but the lack of explanations, stated intentions and (sometimes) amount of ambiguity in the rules certainly hurts.
    Having complex rules is a part of the game, that's fine, but the guys could really do much better FAQs and, in general, wordings. Not that it is that hard, to be honest, and not that the rules are updated that often. Come on, CB, you can do it :A:
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  4. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    6,531
    Likes Received:
    12,174
    Personally I am happy this ZoC checking before ARO prevents accidental mine explosions.
     
  5. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    5,436
    I've been saying every now and then that a "tactics book" made by the community needed to be made, with tips & tricks, and playing aids. Explanations of certain rules would need to be included, certainly.

    Plus a smidge, since the small teardrop is a little more than ZoC (21cm to be precise, vs the 20cm of the ZoC), but for experienced players it won't be much of an aid, since most of the time you can bet that's a mine or not if you are so close.

    Personally, I think it will have the most impact with weapons for which the first range band is critical (HMG, smoke grenades, pistols...) and hacking.
     
  6. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    Right, I was just saying that if the rules achieved a full "there is no Requirements check - you have to meet all requirements in order to declare" (which FAQ 1.1 came close to doing), then the whole "a failed skill becomes an idle" thing would vanish from the rules. So it would just have to be put back in under the Holomask rule. I agree it would be straightforward.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  7. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    I love FAQ 1.1, for all sorts of reasons. Mines are definitely one of them.

    It's FAQ 1.1.1 that's confusing. Not necessarily bad, just... it could use some explanation.
     
    xagroth, Savnock and TheDiceAbide like this.
  8. fatherboxx

    fatherboxx Mission control, I'm coming home.

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    935
    The lack of any direct designer commentary, even superficial, at this point is very bad. Deciphering CB intentions on how the game should be played from the start of N4 has been a constant state of consulting a pagan oracle or reading tea leaves. IJW does good work but even he sometimes acts like he is testifying under oath and warcors... Usually local warcors just say its the users fault that they read the rules wrong - even after the latest clusterfaq.

    It would've been amazing if we ever saw a honest post on how the rules are developed and changed and whether or not CB considers some things as mistakes. Most other companies do that and they tend to be pretty honest "we missed this interaction and it was problematic", "this overperformed and meeds changes" etc. At CB it is radio silence for anything except new models.
     
  9. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    As far as I can tell, this is the sequence of events:
    1.1 gets released containing the revised order declaration sequence while also containing the “LoF is necessary on declaration, ZoC will be a surprise” statement.
    1.1.1 strikes out the “LoF is necessary on declaration, ZoC is a surprise” statement.

    Because ZoC and LoF are both knowable, enforceable requirements, you get reasonable results if those are both required now. If they aren’t... Well, I’d say there are plenty of threads where people are demonstrating the negative logical conclusions.
     
    Nat Lanza, colbrook and Diphoration like this.
  10. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1,307
    I don't come to this forum very often anymore. But I just wanted to say THIS !

    Couldn't agree any more.

    I'm doing a lot of work with my friends and my Youtube channel to promote the game (tutorial, tactical advice, battrep), trying to show it's not as complicated some people say ... this kind of 1.1.1 FAQ feels like taking a nuke in the face as an answer to this work.

    I'm more and more tempted to let it go and say "yes Infinity is a super elite wargame for some people willing to spend their life rule lawyering" ... after spending so much time trying to prove the opposite that kindda hurts me. :cry:

    EDIT : I understand this is meant to stop Uxia and other MSV smoke thrower to force dodge ARO, but imho the game balance is not worth all the harm this does to the clarity of the game which is much more important to get more people playing (and buying miniatures ... which is CB interest)
     
  11. Urobros

    Urobros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    It's help but remember the small template is a little larger than the ZC, so still could be problems there. More than help to accidental mine explosions it helps the "active player" to avoid the mine.

    :D
    I'am really sorry that you an others feel this way, because I sense the opposite, to me this make the game a lot easier because "a lot of things" really happens in the "same place" not in different "subphases" which in the end are a lot of exceptions to the "general flow of game". You have right to do an ARO, so do it, we will check the requisites later. Don't worry about thinking what will come later. II really think is a clean way to fix a lot of problems and too do the ARO decision more important and simplier.

    At first N4 in my local meta we understand the expediture order sequence exactly as the new FAQ explains, so, we have a hard time comming back to "N3" way to do thins, and the new FAQ erasing the "old N3 way" is refreshing and a step forwards and not a step backs.

    Best regards.
     
    LaughinGod likes this.
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,237
    Likes Received:
    6,553
    How so? Mine explosions are bigger than ZoC.
     
  13. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1,307
    @Urobros you still can't declare a BS attack, special skill or equipment that require LoF if you are in total cover. So you still have to check some stuff before the resolution ...

    But glad some of us are happy with the change.
     
    Lawson likes this.
  14. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    BS Attack is the only skill banned. (It's "BS Attack with Weapons, Special Skills, or Equipment, that requires LoF.")

    Preemptive Discover and Place Deployable from behind total cover are still allowed.
     
  15. HellLois

    HellLois What the Hell...Lois?
    CB Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,559
    Likes Received:
    4,144
    oh wow, that was free... XD


    ok, well some notes, why we did this update:
    Basically, this change was made to avoid strange situations when declaring AROs.
    First an ARO was declared and then it was checked if it was allowed to do so. This was undoubtedly an abstraction a bit hard to understand, because first I say I will do something, but I don't know if I have the option to do it. So all those problems of doubts, of whether I can or not do it, are gone.
    This change has also been made to try to eliminate the ARO BATING, avoiding those annoying speculations that only made the players discuss what was more convenient for each one instead of enjoying the game.

    Also, to put an end to that tendency of: "I declare ARO with everything, and I take the opportunity to make an ARO with a hidden Deployment and try to win an order for the next turn".

    Avoid those annoying situations where the assumption of: "I think I am in ZoC and you do not think I am, so I want to declare something and you do not let me, because you really have to presuppose, and when something is a presupposition enter the opinions of each player and not something clear.

    Basically to avoid situations of: "twisting the rules" to exploit situations that do not help to enjoy the game.

    When we delete the first question of the faqs, was because that dosent fit with the order sequence. You declare an order/ARO, and then during the resolution is when you check that the declared Skills and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements.

    Thats why, I think this change doesnt work with the question removed. if not, we should have to move the check requeriments when you declare order/AROs, and that would produce the problems we have on n3.
     
  16. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    Thank you very much @HellLois !

    Many of us have been struggling to work out some of the the implications of the changes. Would you be able to confirm whether my understanding of the declaration sequence is correct here: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/aro-chart-as-of-faq-1-1-1.39892/ ?

    It would also be very helpful if you could explain how these two situations work: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-no-lof-preemptive-direct-template.39894/ and https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-fake-template-baits.39893/

    @ijw is particularly skilled at answering this sort of question, but he hasn't posted on the forums in a couple of months, so if he isn't available than official answersfrom you (especially if noted as official) would be very helpful.
     
  17. Rabble

    Rabble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2021
    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    862
    Funny that @HellLois was writing his post at the same time I was creating my post of appreciation of the new FAQ rules! :relieved:
     
    HellLois likes this.
  18. Urobros

    Urobros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Even if I'm happy with the solution provide in this FAQ I think still exists some issues which should be fixed, I started in the "spanish section" a "topic" in order to bring atention over these exact question. I believe some of them are now in other topics created for other users in the english version, so I follow this instead open a new one with the "same wording" I did there.

    With the new FAQ you can declare in first half order BS attack hidden behind a wall and later, with the second half to move beyond the corner where you truly can trace LoF against your selected targets. A little weird, but is the same as in ARO if you choose to do BS when someone is moving around (no LoF) in his first half, with the hope the enemy will be "dumb" and shows his face around the corner in the second half.
     
  19. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    They are gone for the purpose of being in ZoC. The doubt of "Do I have an ARO" are gone (thanks to the measure after move change), but the doubt of whether or not you can do something are now common in every single aro because, because you can presuppose any ARO with their legality that changes after what the first player will do.

    "I will BS Attack you if you leave the smoke"
    "I will CC Attack, but it will only be valid if I enter BtB"
    "I will CC you if you enter BtB"
    "I will Template you there, and if you leave the smoke, you will be hit"
    "I will BS Attack, but it will only be valid if I leave the smoke"
    "I will place down a Mine, but it will only be valid if you enter my LoF"
    etc.

    Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the FAQ here, the goal of removing these 2 interactions make sense. (Even if I personally do not see the issue with how they were, and think those problems were blown way out of proportion :stuck_out_tongue:)

    If you forced to meet the requirement, you will have the "problem" or "aro bait" someone in smoke with MSV1, where they can only Declare Dodge (Dodge is their best option in 90% of the cases anyway), but you add the problem of a new kind of "aro bait", where you can Declare illegal shot through smoke and see the opponent's reaction before moving out or not to make your BS Attack valid.

    The kind of bait I'm describing here is the summit of "twisting the rules".

    I described some of them in these posts

    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-no-lof-preemptive-direct-template.39894/
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-fake-template-baits.39893/
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-in-smoke-versus-through-smoke.39920/
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-cc-bait.39921/#post-408091
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-look-out-interactions.39922/

    - - - - -

    If we can make sure that issues like these don't exist (with or without preemptive skill declaration), I think the game will be extremely enjoyable.
     
    #39 Diphoration, Jun 21, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2021
  20. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1,307
    Thanks to @HellLois for taking the time to answer to some questions here and explaining their intent.

    I think we all understand and agree with the explanation about the Zone of Control check change.

    And it's now clear that you don't want the ARO mechanic to work as it worked in N3 ... but I do not understand why ... I have been playing the N3 from the first to the last day and it was fine.

    Checking the condition when you declare the ARO allows the player to use it to force a Dodge ARO in Zone of Control but it's not a problem in my opinion. You already removed the old "Change Facing" and "Engage" ARO. So now dodge is much stronger. If a trooper use the second move skill to get into close combat there is a chance that the trooper who dodged can move out of combat.

    What is the problem you had with N3 ARO ? :thinking_face:

    Edit : Also, if your intend is to let people declare any skill as an ARO and check later, does it mean we should be abe to declare a BS attack ARO to a model we can't see just in case we can see it later ?
     
  • 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