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. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    Can't be, unless the perimetral weapons are BS weapons XD
     
  2. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    9,056
    That's the problem.

    This rule was not published ahead of time, nor was it even published to all the players at the tournament. It was only 'published' (told) to those who asked if a Jammer got the Fireteam bonuses. It wasn't told to anyone else, so some people at Interplanetario played that Jammers DID get the fireteam bonuses (anyone whose opponent thought Jammers did)!

    That is complete and utter bullshit.
     
  3. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    566
    What @Section9 said. If you change rules and do not communicate it you are a shitty tournament. And Interplanetario is supposed to be an example for a good tournament imo.

    Anything else related to that TO ruling is absolutely secondary.
     
  4. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    384
    Likes Received:
    465
    "Nah." I work in the games industry, and proofread rulebooks every month or two (and deal with the fallout of errors that slip through). I pay artists and writers and watch my bosses plot their effort and capacity to project plans. I understand the scale of work involved and the choices a business faces in what issues to address to meet customer needs.

    I'm not blaming the playerbase for the rules holes (nice strawman!), clearly.

    I'm saying that where there are gaps and the gaps have clear solutions consistent with the other rules, common sense solutions are better than insane hermeneutical RAW arguments. That also includes the few places where unit or weapon rules are definitely broken, of which only linked Jammers are currently so off. the charts as to count as "clearly." Glad to hear you hate Jammers too, we -do- agree on something! :)

    As for "coming off as," you come off as being abrasive for no reason. Calm down, you'll have more fun.

    No, it's not the equivalent of any of those things (powerful but in-scale weapons or abilities that obey the normal ARO sequence). Linked Jammers don't obey the normal order sequence -and- they are powerful, and that's why they are broken.

    The effects of linked Jammers don't require LoF and are impossible to even Reset against because of the way Sixth Sense works (must be the target of an attack to Reset, and the Jammer can wait until after your second skill to declare, so no Reset).

    B2 WIP17+ -NORMAL- rolls, no way to resist, no more orders on that guy this turn. With no LoF required, in a 17" bubble.

    Perhaps you missed that bit. Demonstrating how broken that is does not require "circular reasoning."

    I welcome you to play against it a few times (with Holo1 preferably) without a list dedicated to killing that and consider how fun those games are. Thank god at least Morats and Vets can still deal with it, but everything else is screwed.

    As stated, I agree that springing the ruling in the middle of a tourney sucked. I'm not trying to justify that. Your assertion that I am proves you don't actually read the posts of people you are attacking.

    Neither one of those things is what I'm talking about.

    The first one is one of those complicated things where a common sense answer is not obvious: not what I am addressing with the "Jesus guys, a Feurbach is obviously a BS weapon and stop being rules lawyers about it."

    In the second case the common-sense answer was discarded for a weird interpretation that none of us really understand, and which overcomplicates things. Probably -should- have been a place where we all just applied common sense, but instead it got FAQed into weirdness. Again not relevant to or an argument against playing pretty clear rules gaps in a common sense way: actually a great argument -against- ridiculous RAW interpretations.

    Nice strawman! I'm not arguing against clear rules, obviously. And clearly refactoring is needed, which is why they are coming out with another edition.

    I'm arguing that where they are not clear -for now-, we apply common sense rather than tortured RAW arguments. Clearly a Feurbach is a BS weapon despite the tag being left off of it. And clearly linked Jammers are broken.

    Regarding MTG's rules, have you any idea what scale of investment that required and requires? I actually looked into it recently because I was wondering. We're talking several FTEs (plus community input) over 20 years to get to where they are.

    Another great strawman!

    I was saying (clearly) that if one wants a legalistic-tight game, there are other places for that. I revile only the use of RAW as a beatstick when common sense fairly clearly indicates a solution that fits the rules and the balance of the game better. Legalism that excludes all common sense is not a good idea in Infinity, because there are always going to be strange situations generated by the many, many interactions in the complicated simulationist rule set, as well as the physical pieces/board. You're going to have to be generous and/or make a few common sense calls occasionally.

    I definitely don't revile MTG, either in rules or in the world. I worked for a nonprofit for a decade that was funded by early-Wizards money. I was the only one in the office whose face wasn't used in the art for a card. The game is a masterwork of exception-based rules sets, design, and upkeep and balance of rules.

    I was actually just watching this video about lessons learned from MTG design over the last 20 years. It's interesting, if you have the time to watch it.


    So, common sense. Yet an RAW-fanatic can still argue that since the tag is missing, it's not a BS weapon, etc. All I'm saying is "don't be that guy." RAW arguments that break the game aren't worth it.

    Clearly not the case with what we're discussing. Linked Jammers were way, way too powerful, so they got ruled out. No saltiness motivating that, just consideration of balance.

    As for not attending tourneys, I don't think the Interplanetario would care much if that's the way you felt.

    Using a clearly broken rule to your advantage when it's well known and almost universally disliked is being a dick. In such a case, it's amusing to see people lose that advantage. You still get a Jammer, too.

    Amusingly I don't hear any protest about the ruling from those who were there, just randos on the internet.

    Accusing people of scrubby attitude is rich, coming from someone using that phrase.

    And again, nice strawman. The rules are fine, and I'm not arguing against rules. Common frameworks are great (and I've lost to a lot of great players, and am never sore about it, which is also hilarious to see you imply).

    Tortured RAW arguments where the intention or balance are otherwise clear (in the few remaining spots where there is doubt now) are not good. That's the Fuerbach tag thing.

    Neither is whining when common sense is exercised by a TO to rule out a clearly broken rule. Yes, springing it at the last minute sucks, agreed. So does trying to use broken things, so I have little sympathy for those who may have felt that the ruling itself was in error.
     
    #124 Savnock, Aug 23, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
    Zergash and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  5. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    4,414
    In a game played in a competitive game, no, "common sense" (which is really just one guy's subjective opinion) isn't the way to go. Clearly enumerated rules is.

    I don't like Jammers but I understand how they work, and the ruling given at the Interplanetario flies in the face of it.

    Nah. There's a reason, and it's because you don't know what broken is.







    No, I saw all that shit. You could do something similar with Eraser in a Triad with a Tri-Core. They obey the normal order sequence just fine, it's just sixth sense that doesn't. If CB didn't want things to work that way they should have put it in the rules.

    Nah, it looked like you were supporting that earlier because the rule was "clearly broken."





    Jammers make BS Attacks. So Jesus, @Savnock a Jammer is a obviousy a BS weapon and stop being a rules lawyer about it.



    I disagree with your assessment of Jammers being "broken." That's a subjective judgment that you haven't justified. By the same token, Kamau MSR in a core fireteam of Fusiliers could be considered broken by some people.

    The rules were already in a pretty good state 10 years after the creation of the game. Magic circa 2004 had extremely clear rules.



    No. Common sense indicates nothing of the sort. Common sense indicates that Jammers are a BS Weapon, and thus they receive fireteam bonuses. Any thoughts about the "balance of the game" can get thrown out the window, since CB loves Jammers anyway and it's not like the Spec-Ops rules are particularly balanced.

    Probably less a consideration of balance than the judge just not understanding the written rules.


    A player playing according to the written rules is following the social contract of Infinity. A judge altering the rules on the fly is violating it. The latter isn't appropriate for a tournament, especially not a flagship one like the IP. Moreover, the consideration that linked Jammers are "broken" isn't universal, so that's one person's subjective interpretation. Criticizing a player for trying to use "broken things" is just criticizing them because you don't think they have the right to try to win games; that's why it's a "scrubby" attitude, because it's taking the position that players' ability to perform well in a game should be constrained by external factors, like what faction they're playing, how much the TO likes them, or whether they're playing the game the "right" way.
     
    Alfy likes this.
  6. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    Question.

    Is the Interplanetario actually run by CB? I thought it was just a big tournament run by the local warcors that CB worked closely with?
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  7. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    1,743
    Your thought is correct. It’s close enough to be on the cusp of being official, but it’s not there yet.
     
    TheRedZealot likes this.
  8. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    9,056
    It's a tournament.

    People have spent thousands of dollars just to get to it (especially anyone from outside Europe).

    If you think that someone isn't going to go all RAW when they have invested thousands of dollars and hours and time off of work and whatever the hell else, you are being willfully self-deceptive.

    When you have a ruleset that is using keyword tags, you have to assume that the presence or lack of a tag is deliberate. Which makes Feuerbachs not a BS weapon by the definitions of the rules. Does it make sense? Hell no it doesn't make any sense. But that is what the rules say. Otherwise you get into arguments about how a Forward Observer (and maybe all plasma weapons) aren't BS weapons, either, because by the dictionary definition of ballistic they don't fire a physical projectile. But FO does have the BS Weapon tag, so it must have been put there by accident (so the argument goes).

    Yeah, fuck that noise about Rules as Intended, that leads to even more arguments than RAW. The Rules as Written need to do what the Rules as Intended say, that is rules writing 101.
     
    Alfy, xagroth, CabalTrainee and 2 others like this.
  9. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    566
    @Savnock Linked jammers being clearly broken is your personal opinion. CB hasn't ruled that way yet and people even argue against that. This is a prime example of common sense being subjective. Do you play in different locations? Especially in Infinity i encountered alot of different ways to play in different cities (ruleswise). Common sense is not as common as you might think.
     
    Ariwch and Hecaton like this.
  10. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    334
    Perhaps I missed it with all the focus on BS and B bonuses, but did jammers also lose their bonus from SSL1&2? If so, by what logic? How about the Kriigel? If in a tricore did it retain the SSL1&2 bonuses?
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  11. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    563
    I have zero respect for Savnock argument that jammers are overpowered as it has nothing to do with the rules.
    At a tournament I would hope everyone is bringing what they think is the most overpowered list they can think of.

    As for common sense... it seams pretty clear Jammers should be getting the fireteam benefits. If they don't then a FAQ should have cought this a long time ago.

    Common sense suggests this was a mid tournament nerf, only applied to a few people.
    Even Savnock should understand why that is messed up.
     
  12. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    9,056
    Just to make it very clear where I stand on this:

    My issue here is STRICTLY that this change was not announced ahead of time to all players.

    I don't like how Jammers work, but that has very little to do with this. Even if I thought Jammers needed this nerf, I would be pissed about how it was not announced ahead of time to all players.
     
  13. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    4,414
    Yeah, that's me too. I would rather Jammers be deleted from the game, but changing the rules like this is not good for the health of the game. Surprise rulings are a bad thing.
     
  14. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    5,751
    I would be happy if the conversation toned down a bit.
     
    TheRedZealot and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  15. oldGregg

    oldGregg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,159
    Likes Received:
    985
    I should really refrain. Apologies.
     
    #135 oldGregg, Aug 26, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2019
  16. HellLois

    HellLois What the Hell...Lois?
    CB Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    I ask to take it easy or we will close this post. Thx.

    About jammers at IP. It was a judge decision. We will add this question on the next FAQs, now we are studying wich would be the final answer.
     
  17. Zewrath

    Zewrath Nordic Master

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,262
    Likes Received:
    1,827
  18. HellLois

    HellLois What the Hell...Lois?
    CB Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    1,901
    Urobros and xagroth like this.
  19. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    4,495
    So, confirmed no answer until, at least, monday ;)
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  20. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    9,056
    Thank you!