Also, why does it suddenly stop being Irregular? After all Civilians cannot be part of any Combat Group and don't provide Orders to an Order Reserve. So I can't see anything that prevents it from staying Irregular even when G: Synced.
Does it matter? Things that can only happen to troopers can (sometimes) happen to non-troopers in this game. @colbrook If that's the case then only armies with Billy or Joan can do this.
You kidding? Hecaton is abrasive and sometimes rude but his raison d'etre as you say is worth gold for a tournament game.
I'm not saying that the goal of tighter or clearer rules is bad, I've been vocal about things like Fireteam options in Army and things like Smoke Dodge myself. But like most things, moderation is key, and whilst constructive criticism is good, continuing to argue after you get a direct, clear, authoritative answer feels closer to performative Trolling than a desire to better the game.
@colbrook we had a direct, clear, authoritative answer on NWI/Dogged and shock ammo at one point. That was awkward. Moreover, it's not like these "authoritative" answers are being distributed via an authoritative source.
We're going to have to disagree on whether "the guy who writes the rules" is an authorative source. How about we respond with "Cool, thanks for the quick answer, can this be put in the next FAQ?" rather than "I won't take the word of one of the guys who wrote the game on how to play the game he helped write".
@colbrook I mostly agree with everything you've been saying here. Furthermore, I really don't want to agree @Hecaton and I think he is 99% a toxic troll. However, I think @HellLois is acting in a way thats detrimental to the game and the community. This: Is not at all productive. I'm not happy that I'm with hecaton at all, but this has happened too much. (Once is too much, and this is crossing the line). How can the company allow this to happen? If they are expecting employees to take the time to comment on rulings (for a game that they sell competitive events packages with), then I would hope that they take the time to release comprehensive FAQs. (Which they don't). If, however, they company (CB) prefers to digest feedback before releasing a comprehensive rule update, then they should hold their staff accountable. No commenting on rulings unless proper approval has been received. (And the comment should therefore be announced as and understood as, official). @Hecaton I suppose I could have been more polite in portraying my feelings about you, but feel free to just ignore those parts. I guess I'm sorry, but only if you're offended. @Koni Feel free to issue another warning or ban. This needed to be said. I hope your feelings haven't been hurt.
I think a big part of the problem is that Infinity's rules development has traditionally been a one man band, which limits throughput and response times. It also means that rules development takes away from the time available for FAQs, and there's been a lot of development over the past 18 months. HellLois came on board to handle ITS, this is a step forward as it spreads the load. Being able to make judgements on weird edge case scenarios is a good thing, having the chap in charge of those particular rules be available to step in and give quick answers is excellent, and if it gets asked frequently then it should go in an FAQ. The problem here is that we have HellLois doing ITS, but Gutier is still doing rule development, FAQs for non-ITS issues, playtest organisation, story and background development, RPG approvals, and a whole bunch of other stuff. We don't solve this by bitching, or moaning, or taking every opportunity to point out tiny inconsistencies, or fight over whether nearest means nearest, but by feeding back on what works. Immediate answers a good start, next step is collating them (though this is already done by some helpful community members). Next step is someone official taking over those threads and collating them into regular FAQs, next is getting another HellLois to take other things over for Gutier, have a dedicated playtest supervisor/Community manager, give them responsibility for bigger FAQs every 3-4 months, that sort of thing. Hopefully they'll learn from Aristeia! having multiple developers and being able to spread the workload (though it's also a simpler game), - V - answers questions on be forums all the time. Despite what people around here are saying things are improving, the last FAQ interval was less than 6 months, having a dedicated ITS guy is a huge step forwards, and hopefully CB is finally starting to move from a boutique developer to a midsized game company. Hopefully Gutier can begin to trust delegation of things like FAQs and answering rules questions on forums to new staff members, or pay Ian to do it, he's got the experience :D So yeah, far from perfect, but complaining about getting direct answers from the guys in charge is just baffling to me.
And counterproductive. Could things arguably be better? Yes. Have they improved from the past? Also yes, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is, to me, also counterproductive.
I'm not asking for perfect. This lack of internal trust is an issue. Any business worth it's salt solves it. I'm not asking for perfect. I (and many others) are asking for a small level of professionalism from a company we have put our money and trust into for years. I'm not even asking for the comprehensive playtesting you suggest or fully fleshed background development. Really just a level of professionalism in communication. It isn't difficult. Some things are, most certainly. Others aren't. Agreed. Disagree. Completely. It should get answered quickly, if there's an official answer. And if there is anything official, then we can all expect to see it in the next FAQ. This shooting from the hip, with no follow-through is unprofessional and counterproductive. Furthermore, CB produces a competitive game, which is the only reason I even comment on this. You shouldn't charge people for a competitive event and then behave this way. It pushes me away (as I'm sure it does others). EDIT: To clarify, the FAQ is for frequently asked questions, yes. I'm arguing that any comment on the forums about rulings from a staff member should either be; a clarifying question so that they better understand said question, an official answer, as stated in a public communication, or the comment should not happen at all. All that said I really enjoy infinity with my group. We have developed a common understanding of the rules and are always seeking development of that understanding. I have less complaints than some, and more than others. Overall, I believe Haqqislam is the greatest faction in the game, and we will lead the Sphere to an enlightened existence. Travel safe, OG
Really? Listen man, I just want a ruleset that's clear and isn't created by decree on an internet forum. Which I think is the same thing you want. The problem is the hugbox. I don't see a point in pretending nothing's wrong when there is; there's a segment of people who would rather CB just not be criticized at all, because they get enjoyment out of Infinity in a way that isn't necessarily helped by having a clearly written and tightly constructed ruleset and is harmed by people talking bluntly about the mistakes the game creators may have made. I'm explicitly not that guy; I think the time I've had to pore over the minute components of the ruleset just to get the scenarios to function properly, along with the time I've spent having to coordinate with TO's here and on other online locations making sure that tournaments are something coherent, sometimes in spite of the rules, is time that should have been spent doing something better. Well, what he's saying is colliding headlong with what the rules actually say, and he didn't write the core rules. Moreover, what I'm really talking about is publishing it in a FAQ, the official tournament document, or something of the sort. As opposed to putting the work on the community to troll through forum posts until they find the rules they need to play in tournaments. Making the forums a hugbox is the opposite of helping things along to improve.
Hey @oldGregg dont get my message out of context, I wrote more than your quote :D It was a funny answer (I think) to the second question of @Hecaton , because his insistence led me to answer him in that way, but, despite the joke, there is an explanation of why. I do not think he's a troll, just a worried player. But im sorry if you think my answer was inappropriate.
The answer is fine, so long as CB follows through (and continues to). I love the game, and would hate to see it go downhill because new players (or any player) can’t find rules/rulings.
He's correcting ITS rules package (which he is in charge of, if I understand correctly), since that's where xenotech originates, not the core rules. And the argument he is supporting his ruling with is taken straight from Civilian rule (i.e. from the core rules). What's the collision?
