1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Daedalus' Fall Batrep: Easter Egg Ruling or Obvious Trolling?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Todd, Mar 16, 2019.

  1. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    So, I'm skimming the video that dropped today (no sound, because I'm on the train, didn't have my headphones, and have the decency to not subject my fellow commuters to my personal hobby entertainment), and I notice that there's a specific moment where they added a text blurb (appears around 27:03).

    "Securitate with HMG spends several orders to reach a certain position where he finds out there is no line of fire with the enemy Clipsos"

    Screenshot 2019-03-15 at 10.06.32 PM.png

    I haven't had a chance to go back and watch the whole video, but this appears to be the only time they did this, which makes me feel like it was something they really wanted to draw attention too. I don't know, maybe they just wanted to showcase Hellois' poor spatial awareness, but I doubt that (though he does appear to bend down and look just prior to his last wasted order). I'm kind of cynical, so I immediately assume it's an intentional nod to an issue we're all familiar with.

    Please, don't refer to this as the "intent" debate, because that's not what this is (and I'm not just saying that because CB have decided to lock down threads where it's brought up). What we're talking about is a fundamental question regarding the nature of LoF as open info and how we're allowed to utilize certain gaming aids (laser pointers, silhouettes, etc). Sure, it grew out of the intent debate, and knowing how this is meant to work could affect the outcome of that debate, but it's still a basic element of how the game is played.

    CB should be able to address the issue in an open and transparent fashion. How is this still thing? Is this the best answer we're going to get? Is this just CB trolling us?

    edit - Called Hellois Koni by mistake
     
    #1 Todd, Mar 16, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2019
    FatherKnowsBest, Razi and Wolf like this.
  2. Xeurian

    Xeurian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    663
    That's not Koni, that is Hellois.
     
  3. prophet of doom

    prophet of doom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    278
    These things do happen. Sometimes you just feel you are certain that your mini will have LOF to the enemy at at certain spot. But then, you realise that was a mistake. Such a mistake can easily happen when you are playing fast, eg. in a tournament. Playing this in hard mode, you just wasted a lot of orders for your model to stare at a wall. One of the problems with Infinity is this endless checking and discussing LOF. It can get quite annoying, especially in a friendly environment where people are allowed to take back decisions. Sometimes i think Infinity should be played hard and fast, but then i realise that would mean that I'd lose most of the time. Maybe Hellois was so sure that he could fire from that spot that he just did not bother checking it beforehand. Looking at the picture, that is likely to be the case.
     
    Sedral, Solar, Robock and 5 others like this.
  4. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Yes, this addresses a fundamental question about the nature of LoF as open information.

    As regular contributors will remember, the rulebook definition of Line of Fire and LoF as Open Information in the Gaming Etiquette section were both thoroughly (not to say rancorously :smile:) debated during The Third Great Intent Debate™ of New Year 2018.

    We debated the rulebook definition of LoF as only existing between models and markers; not to arbitrary points on the table (with certain clear exceptions); and not including pseudo-LoFs to models in possible future positions.

    We also debated the Etiquette sections recommendation that players help one another with existing Line of Fire information, hence undermining (if not entirely debunking) the use of this section as a basis for arguments around pseudo-LoF generally.

    The debate clarified that we're not obliged to tell one another whether LoF might exist at some arbitrary point on the table or for pseudo-LoF, meaning styles of play based on that section can't be enforced as rules-legal, but are optional - if both players agree.

    We already know that Corvus Belli staff don't presume to obtain pseudo-Line of Fire information (potential LoF) from one another anyway, and play LoF quite strictly. So their drawing attention to that moment in the video shouldn't be a huge surprise.
     
    #4 Wolf, Mar 16, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
  5. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    4,960
    chromedog and barakiel like this.
  6. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    4,960
    On a side note:
    Videos are not rules, this one alone has numerous mistakes in it.
     
  7. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Although that's a demonstrably fair account of that debate, it appears the thread will now be subjected to the outrage of rules fundamentalists who, like all fundamentalists, are offended by the idea of people being informed, educated, and forming opinions of their own.

    How threatening it must be for these characters to have to play the game with all its dramatic, risky and confrontational intact, and not as a milquetoast co-op' they've invented to manage the game's stress and uncertainty by emasculating its uniquely Spanish flair.

    This continual hostility and bile is so dismaying when no-one is suggesting players can’t still agree to play their games differently. It should be obvious that as long as all parties are making their decisions with informed consent, they should play however they choose.

    As far as LoF and positioning models by agreement: we all find that a suitable convenience at some point in our games. It's also common to do this other games and sports, such as Matchplay golf wherein players are allowed to concede shots if they choose.

    Likewise in our game, if the Active Player can easily obtain the partial cover, LoF and ARO.s they want (if the tolerances are wide enough) then of course it makes sense to provide a ‘gimme’ for that position - as long as the decision to accept it or not remains strictly at the Reactive Player’s discretion.
     
    #7 Wolf, Mar 16, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
  8. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    93
  9. RogueJello

    RogueJello Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    434
    They spend up a couple of spots in the video, and posted summaries. In this case it was several orders of moving, while useful, slowed down the pace. They did something similar in the end with Helllois's grabs of the two zones. I wouldn't read much into it other than that.
     
  10. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    39
    There is a debate thread for intent STICKIED to the top of this forum, that basically says CB has no official stance on intent, play how you see fit.

    ...and now that your pet rules question has been shoved aside :D, please enjoy mine: Bostia Super jumps his Kiel-Sann in a Triad with the Draal Saboteurs, and moves the Draal along with the Kiel-Saan even though they don't have Super Jump. I don't care if this is a rules preview, rules ruling or he just forgot, BECAUSE WHY WOULDN"T SUPER JUMP WORK THAT WAY! If he forgot, its because it's only natural that short skill jump should behave like short skill move. Please make super jump short skill interact nicely with short skill mov, for the sake of G:sync'd and link troops!!! Thank you for your time and consideration.
     
  11. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    @Wolf you're full of shit if you think that LoF only exists between troopers and markers. Stop acting like you have a consensus when the worldwide Infinity community has roundly rejected your ideas, and you've only backed up from forcing people to declare skills before LoF is checked because you had to.
     
    Omadon, Arkhos94, Todd and 1 other person like this.
  12. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    864
  13. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest River Cool is where I belong

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    798
    The thread does not need locking if the discussion is as Todd requested, a discussion of LoF and various uses of player aids. Laser pointers for example. I use one.

    Certain forum members need to be told to stay out of the thread, under threat of imposition of involuntary vacation from the forums. They seem unable to refrain from 'skunking' the discussion.

    And Koni is the fellow in the background in the intro to the Daedalus Fails videos, the one with the assault weapon.
     
  14. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    4,960
    He was expressly told to not discuss this topic anymore, We can start again if youd like?
     
  15. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    2,103
    I don't think it's fair to either side of the debate if everyone except one person is respecting CBs request not to discuss their viewpoints.

    But one person is using this vacuum to parrot their point of view without recourse. Either @psychoticstorm shuts it down, or we need to kick it off again least newbies think that is the accepted view.

    Edit: To the actual topic, this can easily happen in a game if you don't stop to check/ask lof. I think personally CB staff don't play a tight game as it's more of a roleplay for them, so they're unlikely to worry about checking lof first as I imagine that could be break the immersion
     
  16. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    5,760
    As it has been stated several times in this week alone, the intent debate, is a debate nothing more, nothing less, there is no consensus about the issue and it will remain so until CB decides to rule it out and decide any interpretation between and including, the two extremes.

    Intent discussion has been asked to not be discussed in this forum, because of the volatility that exists between debaters, as evident in this thread and I would ask this thread to stop been a platform of attack between posters.


    As for the video itself, that is one way to play the game and several explanations on why, there are other videos were other ways of playing are showcased, I would not put too much attention into it.
     
  17. Todd

    Todd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2017
    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    388
    This is asinine. CB's stance is that we work things out ourselves, yet they acknowledge that the issue is so contentious that we can't even discuss it here on their own forum without it devolving into an argument.

    Anyway, as I said, with or without including the actual Intent topic (which I don't want to do), LoF as open information and how we're allowed to use gaming aids are valid and very basic questions. They should not be contentious issues, and CB should have no difficulty clarifying them.

    Are laser pointers cheating? Are they okay to use, but only at certain times (when are those times)?

    When can we place Silhouettes on the table at any time, or only certain times? If so, when are those times?

    Let's just pretend that's the extent of it, and how people apply that clarification of play is their own business. These are commonly enough applied aspects of the game, that the community deserves some sort of actual answer.
     
  18. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    4,960
    while I get what you are getting at Todd, the rules are pretty clear that you can use gaming aids at will.

    As too allusions to pre measuring, the rules are clear there, its distance and distance only

    but agreed, clarity would be great, especially as we have had Interplanetario judges continuously rule on the matter in favour of cooperation
     
  19. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    5,760
    I am under the impression it was clear that the intent debate includes all these questions and allegations of rules permitting or not game aids ectr.

    I think it is also clear that while the debate is active, allegations of what rules do permit or do not permit, from either side are to be disregarded.

    It has been pointed out several times that once CB decides, it will be a rewrite anyway and what rules originally had in their intention will not matter.
     
    chromedog, Alphz and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  20. jimbo slice

    jimbo slice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    228
    I missed this the first time around I guess? So basically this won't be answered until 4th edition and we're on our own until then? And also no talking about it (here) in the mean time.
     
    FatherKnowsBest and DFW Ike like this.