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

Existing ITS 9 HellLois Ruling vs Rules

Discussion in 'ITS' started by paraelix, Sep 18, 2018.

  1. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    HellLois has ruled previously that Scenery objectives, like that of Looting and Sabotage and Frostbyte, cannot be destroyed by deployed/remote detonated D-charges. Instead, @HellLois stated that the D-charges needed to be used in "CC mode" in order to function.

    The rules for D-charges, however, state "the user must be in or enter base contact with an enemy trooper." As the scenery objective is not a trooper, the CC mode is invalid. Can we have this ruling revisited or examined further?

    I reviewed the ITS9 thread and there doesn't seem to be much justification for allowing the CC mode against Scenery other than to fit the FAQ response given by HellLois - surely the FAQ should conform to the rules, rather than distorting the rules to fit the FAQ...

    EDIT - I understand as well, that the requirements of a CC Attack skill are "base to base contact with an enemy" - but that just further draws attention to the rules being incomplete or poorly worded, rather than necessarily providing justification for why punching C4 into a building works when carefully placings/detonating doesn't.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  2. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Alternately - can we just have the definition of the Scenery Objectives changed to "count as an enemy Trooper for CC attacks"? Given we're already disregarding the interaction of placed D-charges with Scenery elements...
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  3. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    9,925
    The wording in the missions is:

    An AC2 can only be damaged by CC Attacks with CC Weapons possessing the Antimaterial Trait.

    And:

    A Heating Unit can only be damaged by CC Attacks with CC Weapons possessing the Antimaterial Trait.

    Placing and then detonating a D-Charge is not a CC Attack. Note that this is purely a gameplay issue, it's got nothing to do with how effective it would be to place and detonate the D-Charge instead.
     
  4. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    9,925
    Also, please note that I'm not saying the wording can't be improved - I'm on record as saying that CC against Scenery needs revision - but in this case the restriction is already listed in the mission text.
     
  5. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    760
    Likes Received:
    496
    I agree we logically should be able to plant d-charges, there is even a classified objective titled Sabotage that ask you to plant and detonate a D-Charge (but without rolling for actual damage). so to have a Mission titled Sabotage allowing your specialist to grab D-Charge from a lootbox and asking you to blow up the objective without planting+detonating is silly.

    But, fact are, that you need a CC Attack and the detonation skill is not a CC Attack :( Planting a D-Charge is using it as a deployable weapon.
     
  6. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    9,925
    When fulfilling the Classified, detonation doesn't do any damage to the scenery item, even if the scenery structure rules are in use.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  7. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Infinity is a permissive ruleset, you can only do things that the rules tell you can be done. For example, I can dodge to an enemy in LoF but I can't to an enemy out of LoF but inside ZoC, because it isn't a ZoC ARO I'm permitted to do.

    The rules say - CC attacks are performed against enemies/enemy troopers in base contact.
    The mission says Scenery elements are treated as Scenery structures and can only be damaged by CC attacks.

    The Scenery is not a Trooper. The mission tells me what could hurt it, but doesn't provide permission for me to do so.
    Your logical conclusion is that CC attacks are allowed - and yes, that would be the logical assumption EXCEPT that this game is a permissive ruleset, and if the rules don't tell you it can be done - it can't.

    My problem is that your responses, and those of HellLois and others, are manufacturing rules where none exist in order to support the end goal. Instead of saying "Yes, we wrote that rule in a terrible way, allow us to rewrite it" we get bandaid answers that just say "Look it works, I'm tired of talking about it. Go away."

    For example, "Do special CC skills work vs Scenery structures" - all of the rules say no, unless the Scenery is an Enemy model. The FAQ response? "Yeah, why not?"

    I want to some some responsibility for the writing taken. Again, this current trend is creating a world where I need about 12 different bookmarks in an internet browser to find all of the loopholes and justifications for why I can or can't do things that are otherwise supported by the rules.
    IJW - I know you don't write the rules. You even replied "Also, please note that I'm not saying the wording can't be improved - I'm on record as saying that CC against Scenery needs revision - but in this case the restriction is already listed in the mission text.". But given that these missions were only just rereleased, surely a day could have been spent to FIX them before releasing.
     
    xagroth, Mruczyslaw and Hecaton like this.
  8. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,140
    Likes Received:
    3,974
    100% agree that we need to see more of this.
     
  9. Mruczyslaw

    Mruczyslaw AROnaut

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    957
    Looting and Sabotage is one year old.
    None of those missions is new..
    Even Frostwhatever was in campaign... Open test for it I guess.
    None of those issues is new. They exist for year, or even years.

    Yet we still have to deal witg them.
    Well... Patience I guess. There will be faq/clarification. Patience. We waited one year, we can wait longer.
    Patience;)
     
  10. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    I'm tired of nested FAQ responses when the mission wording us the fault. Release a new ITS pdf with corrected missions. There isn't even a physical ITS document that they need to worry about overruling this season.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  11. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    9,925
  12. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    465
    Could you guys maybe not repeat your bitching word for word from Facebook, plzkthx.
     
  13. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,450
    Likes Received:
    4,296
    I'll just note here that there have been words of "if it's not in a FAQ or the rulebooks or the wiki, it does not exists", talking about rulings made by Hellois in the forum.
    So yeah, CB needs to stop believing that averting the eyes and stay very still is a tactic that works against anything but (maybe) T-Rexes, and get a grip on the mess that are the rules, specially if they want to keep adding stuff over stuff, not only new, but similar to other things that are already there... but using new wording and injecting new bugs because of that -.-U
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  14. grampyseer

    grampyseer User of the "ignore" button
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    463

    What does "dealing with them" mean for you?

    How is this tiring for you?
     
  15. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,450
    Likes Received:
    4,296
    Living with things unfinished

    Instead of looking at 3-4 books (rulebook N3, HSN3, FAQ and ITS doc), needing to look *additionally* inside the forum (which also is not always indexed or easy to find), and other... sources. Like Tapatalk's conversations.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  16. paraelix

    paraelix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    1,044
    Because you usually just finish getting your whole gaming meta on the same level, and somebody points out some single sentence in a wiki entry for a completely different skill that undoes everyones understanding... Or an FAQ to a similarly irrelevant skill that turns the game on it's head with it's implications. It means we then have to start all over again with teaching and re-teaching the same concepts now that stuff has changed.
     
    xagroth and Hecaton like this.
  17. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,875
    Likes Received:
    9,925
    For help with future rules, could you give some examples?
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  18. grampyseer

    grampyseer User of the "ignore" button
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    463
    Okay. I guess I just can't relate. From my perspective, it's a simple matter of a facebook post clarifying the matter to a group of reasonable humans who want it clarified. I can't stretch that to be tiring in the context of my local meta.

    Good luck. I hope you guys get it sorted out.
     
    locksmith likes this.
  19. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,450
    Likes Received:
    4,296
    Engineer and rerroll failed repairs on Mnemonica STR units (Avatar, Skiavoros): the Engineer gives a list without the G: Mnemonica trait on it (listing almost all other Ghost types), and then on the Command Tokens there is a general rule that says engineers can rerroll all repair tests on troops with the Ghost skill (without specifying a list).

    Ghost: Jumper L1 has a nested Ghost: Remote Presence among its listed effects, but only Courage is applicable to current posthumans (unless in the future a Jumper L1 with STR value shows up).

    I think a bunch of threads to "hunt" for this kind of stuff would be in order, frankly.

    The problem with that is a lot of people who only accepts the rulebooks and FAQs, saying that the Forum posts even by the CB staff, are irrelevant until placed within a FAQ.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  20. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    3,965
    Wait so Posthumans do not have 2 levels of Unconcious ?