By the way, as interesting as this thread just got, remember that someone who's just taken up our game will come looking for an answer to questions they have about how Pistols' weird dual-profiles are used in Close Combat in about six months' time. They'll find this forum thread no doubt, but as it stands, they'll just wade through pages of accusations about whether someone is poisoning a well or not (really guys, I'm sure we can do better), but they won't also find their explanation. I'd still like to read one with proper references, and I'm sure they will too.
I'm not sure what you're asking for, the rules question has been answered multiple times already, with rules references.
With the greatest respect Ian, this for example is not an explanation - unless you already know how the rules work, of course. What these forum threads should always end up with is a summary that will make sense to people who DON'T know how the rules work. There were a couple of good contributions, but no-one has yet summarized them (at least as far as I can tell. If there is such a summary, please link it, and I'll certainly redact these posts).
Weapons used in CC use the CC attribute, because that's what the CC attribute does. It's the basic rules of how "CC Attack" works. http://wiki.infinitythegame.com/en/CC_Attack
I mean, a writer always miss mistakes, even with spellchecks, even with manual double-checks. I remember spotting typos in Harry Potter books as a gradeschooler. I've personally written a couple hundred blog articles, and even though I preview each article before posting, I always will find errors later after publishing. Now, I am not one of these loyalist WarCors or fanboys that thinks CB, their PR, their rules, and their presentation of those rules, is infallible. I will, I suppose in the case of I.T.S., since in a tournament one must defer to the law of the game. But, otherwise, it is very very easy to make mistakes in rule text, especially when your primary language is full of reflective, subjective, and conditional tenses, and the other (of the majority of your market) is a Franco-Germanic-Latin-Anglo mashup with an old-school measurement system and some of the most complicated grammar and spelling on Earth, due to its European diversity heritage. Even modern newspapers are full of mistakes, factual or otherwise. It would be nice to see updates and FAQs in Infinity, more regularly, but given that Settlers of Catan has to have FAQs, and all the rules in that game are about as long as Infinity the Game's Fireteam rules alone, means mistakes and oversights are inevitable. I am far more scathing about some of Infinity's bizarre point formulas than I could be about CC FAQs.
I wasn't going to come back here but i feel @Wolf needs support. The rules below work just fine for most instances because weapons are typically one or the other. I doubt many players think too hard about these rules. I certainly didn't. But there comes a point when players realize the rules don't always function as expected. At that point, coasting by on assumptions will cause mistakes. One response is to focus and concentrate harder on the rules. And that is where the trouble starts... because there are some instances where there and no clear answers. We must rely on our own judgement of what we think the true intent of the rules are. So on one hand we want to carefully read and follow the rules precisely to be sure how to play. But on the other hand, if we follow the wording too precisely it might lead us somewhere other than the intended way to play. Which brings me back to the Pistol in CC. There are many points that undermine the RAW: Employ essentially means to 'make use of'. Not exactly the most definitive statement. That bullet is found in the effects section NOT the requirements. If I'm required to use my CC attribute it seems more reasonable to place it there. There is precedent in a parallel rule, BS Attack, that indicates to use the attribute specified by the weapon. (Or am I supposed to infer the lack of that point for CC Attack means the attribute can't change? Should I compare all similar rules and copy any missing statements opposite lol?) The Pistol description itself clearly indicates a Pistol is a BS weapon. That seems like a statement it's a weapon that uses the BS attribute. The profile matches other BS weapons. It has the CC trait allowing it to make CC Attacks which isn't the same thing as changing the way it functions. The profile shows changes to burst when used in CC but nothing else. Short range is 0 which sounds equivalent to base to base contact. Seems like the bonus should apply. (Weapon Profile explanations contradict this in a fashion... assuming anyone spent the time reading that section. Who knew important rules about how things function were in there lol) Those quoting the CC Attack rule as being some definitive answer should rethink that. You're asking me to ignore all other inferences and assumptions in favor of the word employ meaning something other than it's definition in the English language. Rules for reference: CC ATTACK The user employs his CC Attribute to fight in Close Combat (CC). BS ATTACK The user employs his BS Attribute (or that specified by the weapon) to fire upon one or more enemies. TRAITS CC. This weapon can make CC Attacks.
You're still literally quoting the answer. You've declared CC Attack and the skill tells you you're going to use CC attribute for the attack with no ifs and buts. You can either accept that the rules are a bit wonky and just roll with it or discuss how the rules would be improved (preferably in a subforum more suited for it and with the mindset that it's a discussion), but I don't think trying to push the issue that a Pistol in CC should or could use BS attribute is a productive use of anyone's time.
I should have stayed away. Yes, I quoted the answer. An answer that literally doesn't mean what you all think it means. There are plenty of ifs and buts. I've also provided evidence in support of that. What has there been in return? You act like just 'rolling with it' is going to do anything to help me or others understand the rules. Guess what, it doesn't help. It doesn't matter what rule i push as an example. Sixth Sense gets brushed aside as a rare example of how they got it wrong. Other examples are said to be obviously played one way or the other depending on who you ask. You'd think the sheer volume of questions on these forums would be some flashing red sign. But sadly, it doesn't matter how bright the light is when heads are buried in the sand. It's like CB built a 200mph supercar but hasn't realized they put a 50mph limiter on it. I'm happy for anyone enjoying it simply to go to the supermarket and back. But it's frustrating for anyone that live on the Autobahn and just wants CB to remove it.
Infinity is not really all that complicated of a system except for when it is. Infinity is not very streamlined with it's timing or rules language and suffers a lot of rules/FAQ bloat for it. Actually that is really not a bad idea. an unofficial Infinity rules Wiki that got updated with each IJW clarification is probably needed at this point anyway and CB seams to not have much interest in it themselves. We wound up doing something just like this for Star Trek Attack wing back in the day. along with suggested alternative wording for the cards that would help understand them better after errata or FAQ's.
I read your entire post. I read the part where you referenced the same rule that is just as open for interpretation as it was before. I read the part where you pretend it isn't open for interpretation. I even read the part where you offer up the rules as a bit wonky while maintaining this one is not. That also includes the part where you suggest I'm pushing the ruling when its been made clear I know how it's played and play that way myself. You've provided no rebuttal actually addressing my points and that tells me something.
His point is that you are trying to compare BS attack to CC attack when the language in the skills is different. Your whole argument stems from the fact that BS attacks can use something other than the BS attribute as long as it's stated on the weapon profile. Not only does a pistol not mention anything that could change what the base attribute you use for a particular attack is, the language that would potentially allow that during a CC attack DOES NOT EXIST in the analogous bullet point for CC attacks. If you are doing a CC attack, you will use the CC attribute. End of story. Vorpal weapons are nearly the same thing. They are weapons that can be used in CC (with the CC attribute) or as a thrown weapon (a BS attack with the PH attribute).
So you confirm, in other words, that you didn't read the entire post, since you just didn't acknowledge a good 1/3 of the rather short post. This is the rules subforum where we explain how the rules work. If you want to discuss how to improve the rules, then Access Guide is a better place. This thread should probably be locked. You know the answer and you acknowledge that it is the answer. But so far in this thread all I can really ask in turn is "what's your point anyway?" and I think you're going to have to answer that one to yourself before going further because it doesn't seem like you know what it is you're trying to achieve.
Hmmm, I'm not convinced the majority of contributors are really understanding the issue that's causing the problems here, but there are now quite a few of them and I'm in agreement that they don't all sit very comfortably in this part of the forum. As @mahtomari says, there should be some separation between rules explanations; how rules should be explained; whether Corvus Belli should change the way they manage their rule set, and so forth. And for myself, I know I tend to care a lot more about this sort of stuff than other people generally. I admit to being a diehard educationalist who wants to read summaries and conclusions in this forum like the summaries Sun Tzu provides of the various arguments from his generals in 'The Art of War' ... okay, maybe not quite that timeless, but still a dialogue that reads for posterity! That forum content should endure is an old-school attitude, but I don't think the value of this forum is in it being like other social media where arguments come and go more or less in real-time. Facebook may well be great for chatting to your mates without caring that what's said will be forgotten and lost the next day; but by the same token, it's hopeless for future reference. Beyond the enjoyment we get chatting about favourite game together surely the greater value of this forum is that people can raise questions, get answers fairly quickly, but then other people can come along and find them at some later date? Anyway, thanks to those who made bone fide contributions :nodding: :smiling: :backing away:
You have some nerve telling me "I" ignored 1/3 of your post. Your first sentence states there are no ifs and buts directly after i posted a whole list of ifs and buts. I'm not even sure how to answer your question, "what's your point" anymore because what i say is being ignored. And frankly it's clear I'm wasting my time talking to many of you. It's also very difficult to discuss improvements with people who think nothing is wrong to begin with. If I want to discuss or improve rules I'll do so right here. Your opinion the Access Guide is better is not fact. I've asked where these discussions should be held before without response. So forgive me for using the rules forum to discuss the rules. Case in point... Not true. That's just one point among many. I'm not going to repeat them, some are even numbered. Not true. I quoted the rules where an attribute is specifically attached to the weapon. It even links to the stat itself. I addressed that already. We shouldn't infer rules that are not there. If you can only prove a rule is clear by using inferences gained from other rules... that is proof the original rule is unclear. Vorpal Weapon is listed as a CC Weapon Pistol is listed as a BS Weapon Both have the CC Trait. However, the Vorpal Weapon has the Throwing Weapon trait that clearly indicates a change in attribute that the pistol does not have. Why does the Pistol not have a similar trait/note? Because CB thought their intention was clear, which was for weapons to not have default attributes. That way, the CC attribute is the only option for a CC attack. Unfortunately they failed. Currently the default attribute for a Pistol appears to be BS. The default attribute for a CC attack appears to be CC. Neither statement overrides the other. I understand the intent is a Pistol isn't BS by default... but the rules DO NOT make that clear. I understand the intent is all CC Attacks must use the CC Attribute... but he rules DO NOT make that clear. And because it's not clear, we look for answers elsewhere and draw our own conclusions.
I will wholly admit that the rules around this could be clearER, but to claim they aren't clear after realizing you do not declare "pistol attack", but either "BS attack with a pistol" or "CC attack with a pistol" is turning a (very) slight oversight: into far more than it is. I mean, if all it takes is putting a pistol in the list of CC weapons (which are described as being full-sized melee weapons)... but then a knife isn't even on that list and I don't see anyone having any trouble there. There's also this: You mean like the CC trait?
Knowing Pistols are declared like that doesn't actually indicate the attribute changes. That's rather key to my points. I don't know what you're saying here. No. The Vorpal weapon tells us it's a CC Weapon and also has a special rule telling us how to use it as a BS Weapon. The Pistol tells us it's a BS Weapon with no rules how to use it in CC, just that it can be used in CC.
And that's where we disagree about how clear or unclear this example is - because the Skill that's used is what indicates (and explicitly states) what Attribute to use. Could it be clearER? Sure. Do a substantial number of new players find it unclear? No. In summary, it just seems like a really odd example to pick as your hill to die on, in that it's an example that's not actually that unclear. :-(
