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

Jammers not getting Fireteam bonuses?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Aug 18, 2019.

  1. Musterkrux

    Musterkrux Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    491
    I mean, sometimes I'm all about the Ad Hominem and enjoy a good grammar/spelling nitpick at the expense of others but I'm just curious...

    @maru, is English your first/primary language? Are you typing this all out on a phone?

    More power to you if you're punching on with the big boys and English isn't your native tongue, mate. I don't post on any non-English forums (fora, whatever), so have a lot of respect for the reverse position.
     
    #81 Musterkrux, Aug 21, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    DukeofEarl, Alphz and oldGregg like this.
  2. Zewrath

    Zewrath Nordic Master

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    This is literally WGC Infinity Facebook group in a nutshell.
     
  3. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    457
    please, take a look at pulse flash (it is a BS weapon that uses Waves, not ammunition) and the BS atribute in the rulebook/wiki (I posted it to you). It has nothing to do with ammunition, but with ranged attacks. If it is ranged weapon, it is a BS weapon, just than simply. If not, you have to assume feuerbach is not a BS weapon because it has not the TAG
     
  4. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    Please bear in mind that the absence of definition of what weapons are considered BS Weapon (other that said weapon's description) does not mean you can go with real world definitions. The game has no obligation to follow such conventions, and in fact it goes against it on a lot of issues, to increase playability.

    Some weapons, like the Combi Rifle, are called BS Weapons in their entry (outside of the stats box...), other like the SMG are called "ranged combat weapon" in the spanish version of the wiki, while in the english are called BS weapon.
    Others, like Rocket Launchers of all kinds, or (more critically) the Feuerbach do not have any mention of being a BS weapon anywhere.

    Why is the Feuerbach critical? Well, look at the Shogarath Feuerbach, Full Auto 1... getting Burst bonus? RAW nope :S
     
  5. Urobros

    Urobros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    737
    The problem here is how the "tags" and some "wording" are used in rules description and too how most of players see one weapon from all the weapons of the game. Making hard what is or not a BS Weapon. That is what should be corrected in the next FAQ. Please!

    Jammer creates a lot of panic because was introduced in Game by "Ghazi Muttawiah", a really cheap unit which in time to time manages to achieve succes to isolate one big expensive troup, and too the other weapons options the "little bastard" carrries, placing the players in hard position: Should I choose dodge or reset? Here is the real problem, not in the jammer itself ("per se").

    If we think carefully about it "jammer" is only one dice roll most of times confronted, and most of the heavy targets have great PB (around 6) what it makes the chances to isolate an expensive troup really low. Probably if we do a table to record how many times we suffers the jammers effect the numbers surprise us, not so many troups isolated as we could think at first. But when our heavy TAG is isolated we remember from months XD

    I only hope (and it is a small one) the future 1.8 FAQ bring us some ligh about it.

    Best regards!
     
    xagroth likes this.
  6. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,506
    Likes Received:
    4,078
    It just get funnier and funnier xD
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  7. maru

    maru Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    nah it is 3 th or 4 th depending how you count
    Flash pulse getting bonus from link is same stoopid as jammer imho
    but looks like intent was that +1 burst applay not to Balistic weapon or to Range combat Weapon but to Weapons that possess a range bands (-3/0/+3/0/-3/-6 ) or direct template

    @Urobros
    Jammer can be balanced in a certain armys on particular units - Gazi is an example - in any other army it would be unbalances but in Haqq that lacks To Tags or supreme hackers it caind of work , addicionaly it is impetous irregular unit - it will not drag for 1 order a whole group of 5 minis with it including a specialist , Yo u need to pump like 4 ~6 regular orders in to him and just him to attempt jamm a 1 unit , or don't do so keep him as a smoke provider and a caind of zone denay in aro .
    But an other hand Muyib with Jammer in link seams silly and not exacly right - like any Spec ops with Jammer
     
    Musterkrux and Urobros like this.
  8. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    457
    why do you say that the intent is that, and not "ranged weapons"?
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  9. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    472
    TLDR: Stop being dicks about ridiculous RAW stuff and use common sense, guys. And stop crucifying the game designers for your own inability to use common sense in small rules gaps. Also TOs get to call their tourneys.

    Clearly not the same thing. This is RAW picky dickery again. Linked Jammers are clearly broken. The BS weapon clearly got left off of a few guns that are clear-cut shooting things. Two very different cases.

    Don't use slippery slope arguments to say that things that are clear oversights or obviously broken should not be addressed, or that addressing one clear problem means the whole game falls apart.

    Game company financial manager here. You're right about the change management issues. However adding an extra person on the payroll when you're fighting tooth and nail to cover costs, pay your people well, and still turn a profit is a big deal. If they aren't generating revenue or -significantly- increasing the value of the product/service, you don't do it.

    In this case, we're talking about a tightening of the ruleset mainly to satisfy people who whine about obtuse RAW interpretations that could be resolved with a tiny bit of common sense. Addressing that doesn't generate a ton of extra value for the product (meaning a difference that would add sales).

    So maybe we should all just be grownups, see the game as the damned good thing it is with minor blemishes that a mature adult can just agree on with their opponents, and be reasonable about rules discussions rather than begging for an MTG-style legal document that takes at least another FTE and a shitton of time to generate.

    Or at least wait until N4 comes out, then offer as a community to help them with fixes.

    Fixes for things that don't work in the rules are inherently in contradiction to the rules. And we all know the official FAQ process is too slow and often unclear, so TOs get to make their own calls. A TO gets to make their own calls on obviously problematic unresolved issues with the rules.

    Linked Jammers are an obvious problem that would seriously throw a game against them that involves any central objective. That's a massive issue. The TO here (and hopefully all other TOs with SpecOps tourneys) got to fix that. If you have a problem with the authority of TOs dealing with the few wobbly things in Infinity, you're playing the wrong game.

    Go play Magic, they have lawyers writing that stuff specifically to deal with people who obstinately tout RAW and whine about unclear things.

    They should have announced it better though, true.

    That is clearly not the same thing. We're talking about a no-LoF weapon with SSL2. The example you give above is well within the range of things already in the game. A linked SSL2 Jammer with high B and WIP blows the curve, in addition to being impossible to reply to, especially when you can hide it with Holo 1 until it fires.

    ...or the job of the players to take a 99% okay document and not be jerks about the wonky bits, especially when their resolution is pretty clear by any ssane sense of proportion.

    RAW is mostly bullcrap because it encourages bizarre hermeneutic arguments about what is pretty clear common sense.

    It might be useful in places where it could really go either way, like whether a strange thing like a no-LoF WIP-based Jammer is a BS weapon say. But not whether a bog-standard shooty thing like Fuerbach is a BS weapon, for example.

    You guys can tell the difference between a questionable 50/50 area and clearcut oversights. Stop pretending otherwise just to argue a point.
     
  10. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    457
    just because you think your way doesn't mean your way is the "common sense". The "gap" in the jammer rules is related to it beign a BS weapon or not, and all similar/related rules say so. So my common sense makes me thing that, by rules, jammer gets the bonuses, its broken, and is something CB didn't think about when they changed the spec ops (I think people can make mistakes and so). So we all can stop "beign dicks" and leave insults and accusations outside, right?

    they ruled over the rulebook/wiki, so it is a house rule for that tournament. Do we agree there? If we don't agree, we have to look at the rules and why they ruled it like that.

    Did they decided that having no tag means no bonus? OK, but then why didn't they took away also the +3 bonus, which is for BS attacks?. Also, if they ruled it because it is not "BS weapon", that same reasoning should be used for other weapons that haven't that TAG. In that casen which is the purpose of Full auto on sogarat feverbach or gamma? gaining 1 extra burst in the pistols? this ruling makes no sense with other rules. My common sense says that they didnt rule because of this, it makes no sense overall.

    If they ruled it because they think is broken, it means is a change of rules and then needs to be addressed in official documents, and, I suppose, they will do it for next ITS. But it was a wrong move the way they did it (not why, but how). The organizacion should have sent a notice to all the players before the tournament with that and any other "errata" or ruling, or at least, at the beggining of the tournament, not during it if they asked. if a TO says so before the tournament, no problem, but everybody knows beforehand

    But the "they ruled like that in a tournament because is broken and now we need to use it like that in all tournaments by default" seems wrong to me, because, what about those that didn't know about the tournament? they look at the rules, the FAQs, they look at the pdfs, and see nothing, then go outside (or some outsider go to their tournament) and then they will have the same discussion as here again.
     
    Vanderbane and xagroth like this.
  11. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    With all due respect, Common Sense is the least common of all senses. And what is perfectly logical to you, might not be to me or others.

    As for the "game company financial manager" angle: do you relly thing that something like the Zondnaut box (bike, S5 remote, S2 guy) would sell as well without rules? Remember, it's AVA3 in tunguska, so there is one clear reason to spend 150 bucks in three of those boxes...

    And in fact, the rules being free have always been a staple of Infinity, and one of the reasons is "easy" to introduce people to the game: Demo, indicate rules section for download, see new player buying an army, while other business need said player to buy or borrow a book, which is an extra entry barrier.
    Added value is added value.
     
    Urobros, CabalTrainee and oldGregg like this.
  12. maru

    maru Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    easy - all weapons that got " range bands " applay +1 Burst including Flash pulse (and direct templates ) and ZoC devices/ weapons not - Pheroware - eraser - Zoc - not applaing , hacking - ZOC - same

    O and BTW CB is made out of Spaniards not accountants - they do not analise they feel, react hava a fun and talk laud using hands. so im not surprised when errors pop up - this particular one may not even be an error if you natively use Spanish as symilar worlds may have different meaning in other languages.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  13. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,063
    Likes Received:
    5,853
    Guys please calm down.

    And please don't bring @maru on how he writes, English is his tertiary language and he really does great in improving his written expression.
     
  14. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    457
    well, that is because hacking or pheroware tactics are not a weapon but special habilites. Eraser is an attack also, special attack, not a weapon, and not a BS attack. None of them are in the weapon list, so why do they need to gain a bonus meant for weapons? jammer on the other side, is till a weapon (is in the list).

    and judging spaniards because they are loud or talk using hands... it is rude, what has that to do with how they do their job?
     
    xagroth and Hecaton like this.
  15. maru

    maru Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    You read what i have written but you do not understood a thing, you just don't won't to.
    There is no point in me helping you to gasp the sources of such strange interpretacion on interplanetario any more .

    Do i agree with it ? - partialy yes
    it is correct with currently reliced rules ? - NO
    Do event organisers have a right to introduce "home rules" - yes
    But they should inform about it openly a feve weeks before event
    (if this is even a home rule not a error in translation from Spanish to English or incoming errata that got not yet reliced but was known by CB employes and stuff )
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  16. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    472
    Saying that common sense can vary in degree so we should not rely on it at all is not a good choice. Again: more clear cut problems, let's just agree to play them the way they clearly should be played (and exclude stuff that has the rare extremely broken rule, like linked Jammers).

    Like I said and agreeing with you, cases that are more 50/50 can be discussed. But stuff on the very-very end of the obvious scale should be common sense, and we should use that common sense rather than refrain from it because of some bizarre form of relativism.

    The effect on a game of a B2 SSL2 linked weapon with no LoF is indeed pretty obvious, especially if it gets Holo 1. Almost all of us agree that it's broken. Likewise we can all see that a Feurbach is supposed to be a BS weapon, they just forgot to attach the tag to it. That's common sense in the two cases we are talking about.

    See above.

    That's not what we're talking about. Those are basic rules, and CB handles them well. I'm talking about minor legalistic quibbles like tags left off of completely obvious BS weapons like the Feurbach.

    They don't need to hire a technical writer to deal with that stuff on an ongoing basis. Most of it, mature players can resolve via discussion of the obvious until a FAQ deals with it. Having a tech editor or extremely experienced games editor look over the rules when there's an edition change seems like a good idea, but it's probably not a position to maintain on an ongoing basis.

    The few critical issues of things that are really 50/50 and unclear, yes CB should address via their community management. Hounding them about it has diminishing returns. They definitely get the message already.

    And a TO can deal with those sort of open questions by simply ruling on them for the tourney. That would be best to do with plenty of warning and explicit statement rather than waiting for controversial arguments, yes.
     
    #96 Savnock, Aug 21, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  17. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    457
    I read what you wrote, and I understood (or at least, I think so). It's just that I don't agree with the logic you are applying here because you are trying to put in the game some concepts from outside of it (the ammunition logic, which has no meaning, no mention in the rules), or that have no relationship with those rules (hacking and so, which are not weapons or BS attacks). Jammer is a ranged weapon, with a very low range, yes, but it is till a ranged one that make BS attacks because it is a technical weapon. Seems clear to me that CB forgot to put the BS weapon tag, and also, didn't have in mind the interaction with fireteams because they didn't thougt of that possibility when they created the weapon. Another thing, the jammer issue is not a translation problem, both in spanish and engilsh have the same TAGs (CD instead of BS in spanish), and also, in spanish, there are a few weapons that instead of the TAG, they have "ataque de combate a distancia" which is the same as "Ataque CD" (or BS-Attack and "ranged attack").

    the problem with the "they clearly should be played" is that, if it is not in the rules/faq/errata, we don't know what it is, we can only suppose. And we can even agree with some home rules, but what will happen when 2 different people from different meta and different homerules, clash and one of them didn't know about this? thats why we cannot think of this "as how should be played" because is a change in rules and some people might not know about it. But I suggest (and encourage) to talk with the TOs in your zone so they apply
     
    oldGregg likes this.
  18. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    7,846
    I think you might be over-interpreting what I'm trying to say, but I agree with you. Technical writer isn't someone you hire mid-way through an edition to patch things (unless the situation is dire), but I'm hoping they hire one as a fixed position or on a consultant basis for N4 so the maintenance on the rule set will be smaller for them.

    That said, I think there's reasons for why there's a lot of disagreement in the rules forum and that you almost never hear about it happening in real life during a game.
     
    xagroth, Savnock and Armihaul like this.
  19. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    472
    Again: In cases where it's 50/50, that's fine. In cases where it is obvious (like that a Feurbach is a BS weapon), yes it's quite clear how they should be played. Use common sense there. Equivocate on the border cases sure, but that is a minority of the existing issues.

    Saying that everyone should play according to some tight legal standard or absolute RAW does not work with Infinity, and it never has. There's always squidgy stuff. Be sensible and be generous to the other players. If you don't care for that uncertainty or standard of sportsmanship, go play Magic.
     
  20. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    457
    but actually this case is exactly the same as the Feuerbach ruleswise. Is not a "tigh raw" and the other is clear, is just what rules say, we like it or not. We cannot avocate to change rules on our own just because we say are broken (why aren't postumans nerfed or banned then?). We can talk with our friends and make some house rules, but we cannot spect to other people to do the same way or force them to. Making up rules just because we don't like them doen't work neither. And it has nothing to do with sportmanship or uncertainty.

    The facts we know are:
    The rule is not easy to get, but how it works is known)
    A TO in an event made a house rule changing how it works, and can be used as an errata in the future, but still it isn't.
    At the moment we have no info about it being and oficial decision, and if it will be applyed to all FT bonuses or only the +1B, or how. We know nothing about that. It could be not the first time they do rulings that don't make it to the FAQs/ERRATA.

    from here, everyone can talk with their TOs, their playing groups and so (I asked the warcor of my zone what is he gonna apply, for example). But assuming or tick people of anything unrelated just because are dissagreements, is wrong.
     
    xagroth and ChoTimberwolf like this.