Well, I'm not sure I can fully agree with this argument. I mean, if a rule comes out and plays mayhem with balance, or interacts poorly with another rule, then yes, I see your point, the company is not big enough to develop, test, and publish an alternative on the spot. But I find it amazing, and frankly disconcerting, that the same company can't say what they actually meant when they made the rule in the first place. So for example here, CB should be able to instantly tell whether they intended Jammers to interact with fireteams as any other BS weapon (however undefined that term is) or not. Maybe the result brings unintended consequences that will require more time for corrective measures to be put in place, but offering that initial answer requires no more time than it takes to write down the text. And as I've said elsewhere, I assume they play the game, so they should know how they apply the rules in-house. Personally, I am absolutely amazed to see people arguing the wording from the rulebook to figure out the meaning, and having no answer from the company.
Nah. The interaction between SymbioMates and nonlethal ammo isn't a common-sense interaction, and they persisted in putting it into the rules, so we can't rely on that. Blaming the playerbase for CB's poorly written rules is absolutely wrongheaded and comes off as if you are attempting to suck up to them. Linked Jammers aren't "clearly broken." You have no idea what you're talking about, you're just using circular reasoning to justify a TO springing a ruling that goes against RAW on a player in the middle of a tournament. A surprise ruling in the middle of a tournament is not how any of this should have been addressed. It should have been addressed in a FAQ or rules revision. I don't like Jammers. I like Jammers in fireteams even less. But the rules for how Jammers interacted with fireteams is pretty clear. No, but tightening the rules so that new players could learn it more easily would be great for sales. And that would keep people like me happy. Nah. This game actually needs an MtG-quality ruleset. Given how bloated and poorly organized the rules are, you could probably make one that's more concise and much clearer than the current rules documentation. Clear rules are a good thing, not a problem. Ain't gonna happen. There's too many middlemen who insulate CB from the actual community. 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.[/quote] Jammers in fireteams definitely work, they're just very powerful. Same thing with SymbioMates, Posthumans, etc. The rules for them are very clear. The rules even say that are BS weapons (since they're grouped with BS weapons here.) If a TO assessed their own house rules on a tournament because they think rules element x that's explained clearly in the rules is broken, I wouldn't attend, most likely, because TO balancing on the fly is usually just them being upset they've lost to a faction or profile. Springing that on a player in the middle of the tournament is duplicitous. No. If you are playing a game where the TO extemporaneously decides on the rules, you aren't playing Infinity. Magic is one of the most successful games of all time. It has a very clear ruleset because games played in tournaments have to. That should be emulated, not reviled. And get out of here with that scrubby attitude. People playing by the rules is fine, it provides a common framework for use to have fine, even when you lose, @Savnock .
@Savnock Can you explain to me what kind of common sense works like the Zhayedan with breaker combi? If we applied common sense to the infinity rules we would need to rewrite the entire rulebook.
Well, I could make a good argument to buy 4 of the things, one for each of the Knight Sabers. But I'm only planning on buying 1, just for Priss. This. Of the entire issue, the fact that whatever 'FAQ'/houserules were being used at the tournament wasn't published ahead of time that is unspeakably wrong. I would have been pissed enough to walk out of the tournament right there, even if I didn't have a linked Jammer in any list of mine, or facing me. Even if I had paid some $10,000 to be there (plane flight from US to Spain, hotel, food, souveniers, etc. assumes about $1000 a day for touristy places, plus about $3000 for airfare). This is equivalent to going to a tournament and finding out in the middle of a game that Tarik/Khawarij are not linkable. Oh, but that's only in YOUR games, not even applied to everyone at the tournament. Only those people who asked a Tournament Judge if FAT2 stacked with Link bonuses have to abide by that rule. You want to say that Jammers don't get Fireteam bonuses, or that FAT2 doesn't, at your big tournament? Sure, just tell me ahead of time what the rules actually are! If CB can't even manage to make sure that various rules and skills have all their keywords (just to pick one, Feuerbach), they need a full-time technical writer. Page 5 Rule 5: Page 5 (ie, always playing your best to win the game) is not an excuse to be an asshole. It is perfectly possible to make a miniatures game have have rules-lawyer-proof interactions. WarmaHordes did that in Mk2, and further tightened it up in Mk3. There is no reason Infinity's rules could not be written that tightly. It requires having some people who enjoy looking for loopholes on staff, and probably a couple people in each language the rulebook is printed in, too. It's just that Infinity's rules are not currently written that tightly.
I think we can chill with this whole debacle. I can see one of teo things that's happened; either this comes from the tournament organizer and they failed to properly communicate it ahead of time or this comes from CB who are testing/planning on changing Jammers to be equipment and the TO failed/didn't have time to communicate it properly ahead of time. I'm personally convinced it's the prior, it seems way too round-about for CB to make this go live during a tournament. Either way, chill out because it doesn't change anything about Jammers until CB publishes an errata on it.
Last time we had a ruling like this at Interplanetario (Camo markers combat groups being known) it was treated like "Of course this is how the rules work. Why aren't you guys with the program?"
No it wasn't. Maybe it was an informed TO call through someone being a playtester, but it certainly wasn't entirely consistent with how CB later FAQed it (and that FAQ might even have been prompted by the intense debate because of it). More importantly, last I checked Interplanetario wasn't run by CB. So chill. It's not official anyway until CB publishes it.
The thing with that was, if I recall correct, the group of a marker was public info in n2, but private in n3. I don't know how they ruled
As I recall, what was ruled was that the trooper's group was known, but not their equipment, and as such mines didn't have an order group and it was easy to tell what wwas a mine and what was a trooper.
I must say that table do not list only BS weapons, but also melee ones... thus not being a BS weapons table (sadly). I've been looking for days for a definition or cathegory of BS weapons other than said weapon saying it is... Else the Feuerbach is not a BS weapon (no MMX for Teucer, no Full Auto for Sogarat... no Active Burst bonus for Deva Specops ODD with Feuerbach, damn it XD) Please be aware that, while CB not an organizer of the Interplanetario, but an endorser and "patron", but the Esbozos association... to which several people of CB belong (at least, Hellois does...), and on previous Interplanetarios there have been "FAQs for referees" much bigger than the official ones. So despite CB, as a company, not being directly responsible... it is hard not to say they provided extra FAQ content, that is never published. Or to ask if among said FAQs were the "Jammers do not get Fireteam bonuses", for whatever reason.
Exactly, it was just the trooper in the TO ruling which caused months of debate before anything about a camo marker's combat group being Open Information got into an FAQ. Again, I'm fairly confident that it's caused by playtesters being involved in the TO's meta that pushes unreleased changes to enter their meta. Chill and wait for stuff to be published. Or at least discuss it as if it is unpublished as is appropriate instead of making a bunch of faulty assumptions about what's a weapon and what's not.
Yeah, and that still doesn't change anything at all! Until published, Jammers are a BS Weapon and we haven't even got a clue WHY they'd inform the TO Jammers shouldn't get a bonus. It is completely immoral (within what's moral of a game) to make assumptions such as "it's not a weapon because it doesn't say it's a weapon" and then run off and second-guess over half of all weapons in game! Unless it's published, it's not in effect.
If you notice they're listed by type, as it says so at the top. Jammer is listed with the BS weapons. Why aren't they distributed to players? I haven't seen any evidence of these FAQs existing.
I think it works the other way. They have their house rules which make it into a FAQ. In a sane handling of the situation, that'd be true.
I simply fail to see the logic in that grouping, since it is not explicit and the AP HMG, HMG & MULTI HMG is listed between Stun Grenades (discontinued, but the smoke grenades are before, and before the grenades, there is the Grenade Launchers) and Antipersonnel mines, then drop bears, mines of several kind, then missile launchers, the Panzerfaust & different ammo variants, KrazyKoalas, Madtraps, SIMBIOBUGS, some pistols... And the feuerbach is placed between E/Mitter and Flash Pulse... XD
yeah, I mean "by type" does not seem to mean "melee weapons, then no-roll templates, then something, then BS weapons" XD
I think it's just "CC" and "BS." No idea why mines are in there. I guess because they lay down direct templates?
